1951-12-14

Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. There is an article in the Globe and Mail, a newspaper I respect and frequently read, bearing this headline: "Claim Seven of Ten M.P.'s Use 'smugs'." The reference is to smuggled cigarettes, Mr. Speaker. This whole house passed this law, and if members of parliament are so keen on saving a few cents on cigarettes I do not think this is the place for them. We should obey our own laws if we expect others to obey them.


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: When I made that statement, Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to include the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor).


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: It is true, Mr. Speaker, that I do not smoke, but if I did smoke I would pay for my cigarettes; I would not smuggle them.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Winkler.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I should like to make an announcement concerning increases in civil service salaries, the pay and allowances of the armed forces, and the pay of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The statement is as follows:
After a careful review of all relevant factors, the government has decided that it would be right and proper to authorize an increase in salaries in the civil service, and in the pay and allowances of members of the armed services and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The last general adjustment in rates of pay occurred in December of 1950.
As I have said on previous occasions, the government's policy in these matters is based
on two main principles. First, that salary and pay scales and other conditions of employment in both the civil service and the armed forces should be such as to attract and retain persons of the right type and necessary qualifications. Second, that having regard to the ancillary conditions of employment, remuneration for each class of work or employment should be generally in line with that paid for comparable work by good private employers.
Applying these principles to current conditions, the government believes that a broad series of pay and salary increases is now justified. These increases will apply to all ranks in the armed services and the R.C.M.P. (excluding the commissioner and the chiefs of staff) and to all classes of the civil service with the following exceptions:
(a)	The salaries of civil servants in the higher brackets will be reviewed on an individual basis.
(b)	Where it is clear that current civil service salary rates are already closely in line with rates being paid by good private employers, the civil service commission will consider whether and to what extent it would be proper to recommend specific increases.
(c)	Where the salaries paid in any class have been adjusted since December, 1950, a lesser increase than that applied generally will be authorized, again having regard to rates being paid by good private employers.
(d)	The proposed increases will apply only to classified employees. The rates of pay of prevailing rates employees, as is well known, are governed by the prevailing rates in similar private employment.
The amount of increase will vary from class to class in accordance with the basic principles to which I have already referred. The range of percentage increases will be from about 4 per cent to about 14 per cent. The general average effect of these increases will be to add between 8 and 9 per cent to the total salary, pay and allowances cost of both the civil service and the armed services. It is proposed that all these adjustments will date from December 1, 1951.
Full details of the new rates of pay and allowances in the armed services and the pay of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are being announced by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the Minister of

Public Service-Pay Increases Justice (Mr. Garson) and I take this opportunity of tabling copies of these announcements. Complete details for all classes of civil servants are not yet ready. The civil service commission, however, has completed its recommendation for all the larger classes covering more than four-fifths of the personnel in the classified civil service, and I am tabling a copy of these recommendations which have been approved by the government. The remaining classes will be dealt with during the next few weeks and will be announced in the usual way as soon as they have been approved.
In the case of most departments, there have been sufficient savings in the salary votes to take care of the increased rates of pay for the remaining months of this fiscal year. Some departments may require small supplements to their salary votes before the end of the fiscal year. If that proves to be necessary, parliament will be asked early in the 1952 session to vote the required funds.
I now table copies of the schedules prepared by the civil service commission for the civil service and approved by the government and copies of the announcement and schedules issued by the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Knowles:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Would it be possible for a document to be tabled showing us the basis on which these calculations have been made, in view of the fact that this 8 per cent increase in salaries covers a period during which the cost of living index has risen by about 12 per cent?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. member will look at the schedule that has been tabled, I hope he will find in it all the information required in that regard.



PRIVATE BILLS


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, might I have the unanimous consent of the house to make a motion with respect to these four bills concerning religious communities which have just been reported, without amendment, from the committee on miscellaneous private bills. The bills having been distributed to hon. members on December 11, I should like to move that when we pass to the orders of the day they might be referred to the committee of the whole house for immediate action prior to our dealing with government orders. I think that would be in order.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.
[St. Laurent.]



AUDIBILITY OF DEBATE-INQUIRY AS TO PROGRESS IN INSTALLATION OF MICROPHONE SYSTEM

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) requested that I table the correspondence concerning the installation of a loud-speaker system in the House of Commons. I now do so.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) referred to articles which appeared in the Montreal Herald of December 10, 11 and 12.
Perhaps it would be a fair summary of the articles to say that they allege that, despite orders for S400 to $500 million worth of radar equipment, it is doubtful if our radar defences will be completed in the three years planned and that this is because of red tape and delay in ordering and producing equipment.
The articles leave the impression that $400 to $500 million have been appropriated to be spent on equipment for the radar screen. I am unaware of the source of this figure but it is fair to say that it is a gross exaggeration. A more correct figure would be in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent of this amount. The equipment on order for the radar screen is of the latest type. Orders were placed as soon as the development work on this equipment had proceeded to a sufficient point to enable production to be undertaken. It will be appreciated that it takes about two years to construct a station of this kind and to make and instal the radar equipment. While delays are inevitable in this, as in every other country, in the production of new and complicated equipment of this kind, reasonably satisfactory progress is being made and some of the equipment has in fact already been installed. In the interim, we have equipment of the type in use at the end of the second world war.



FISHERIES


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should make a short statement this morning on the marketing position of Newfoundland salt codfish. Certain misleading statements made in the house on Monday, December 10, by the hon. member

for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) make it desirable for me to put the record straight.
Marketing of the 1951 production of salted cod is proceeding satisfactorily. Total production of salted fish was slightly higher than in 1950. However, shipments to market from July to November this year were 333,000 quintals, compared with 220,000 quintals of 1950 fish in the same period of last year.
The stocks on hand today are 80,000 quintals below those for the same date last year and 300,000 quintals less than in 1949. Contracts already made for the balance of the marketing year, together with regular monthly shipments to traditional markets, will take care of all fish on hand before the new season's fish becomes available.
The hon. member mentioned the Spanish market. I can inform him and the house that a shipment to that market is going forward this month.


Mr. Graydon:: Order. This is not in order. We have let the minister go on as long as we can. This is an abuse of the privileges of the house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Graydon: Oh, yes. You cannot answer an hon. member in that way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) wishes to speak he should rise in his place.


Gordon Graydon: On your invitation, Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise in order to say this. We allowed the minister to proceed a long way in order to say this. We allowed the minister to proceed a long way in this statement which he actually had no right to make in answer-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must be heard without interruption.


Gordon Graydon: Actually the minister had no right, under the rules of the house, to reply to a private member who made a certain statement in debate. I had thought that the minister was going to make a new statement of policy with respect to Newfoundland salt codfish. But instead of that he was using this as a means of replying to something said in ordinary debate. He should not have done that.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I do not agree with the hon. member for Peel. I am making a statement to correct a misstatement that will be detrimental to the fishermen of Newfoundland. That is my purpose in doing this.


Gordon Graydon: You must make it in
debate.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure whether there will be an opportunity during the debate before the end of the session for the minister to reply. It occurs to me that the house would like to have the information, but the statement must not be provocative or argumentative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Probably the minister can make his statement. He should give information only to the house.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I-


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I have no intention whatever to enter into a debate with the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar speaks, does the minister desire to continue with his statement, or to make a statement explaining his statement?


Major James William Coldwell: My question has a bearing on that. In this corner of the house we cannot hear what the minister is saying. I wonder whether he would speak a little louder.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I say that I have no intention of following and answering the debate of the hon. member for St. John's West; I merely want to make this statement.


Gordon Graydon: That is what has been done.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: A similar healthy marketing situation exists in the mainland producing areas. Export prices for salted fish have shown definite improvement this year. Prices, grade for grade,-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: On a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Green:: Order.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Prices, grade for grade, are significantly higher than a year1 ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: Order.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Efforts will continue to be directed towards expanding the markets, both at home and abroad, for all Canadian fish products.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, now that the record has been played I suppose I might as well sit down.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: On a question of privilege-
1922	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Mr. Maclnnis:: I should like to say something on a point of privilege. I think it shows exceedingly bad taste from those on the front opposition benches to object to a statement of this kind after all that was said by their leader during the last two weeks on questions of privilege from that very place.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege I should like to add a few words myself. May I say in this connection that we have had announcements in respect to the wheat growers and other farmers in the Dominion of Canada, but I have never heard an interruption like this. But in connection with the fishing industry, something that is of great interest to many of us coming from the maritime provinces, the interruptions today were very much out of order.


Mr. Browne (S±. John's West):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Get the facts
straight.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the minister's statement I think we should hear a few words from the hon. member from St. John's West.


William Joseph Browne: I should like to address a question1 to the Minister of Fisheries for the purposes of clarification. Will the minister state whether the fisheries prices support board is watching the market and the prices paid the fishermen-not the prices paid in the foreign1 markets, but prices paid to the fishermen-so they can come to the assistance of the fishermen if they are not getting suitable prices for their fish, as I pointed out in my address the other day?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The answer is definitely yes, and has been ever since I have been Minister of Fisheries.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939, to exclude certain areas of land from the provisions of section one of chapter forty-seven of the statutes of 1950 and thus render such areas eligible for assistance.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Garfield Gardiner: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house. But, under the circumstances, as


has been suggested from the far corner of the house, I think I should make an explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This would be an unusual procedure.


Mr. Casselman:: This is an unusual day.


Mr. Speaker:: It would be an unusual procedure to have an explanation made at this time. I will allow it only with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the objective in making the statement at the moment is that I think it was understood by the house some days ago that probably no new legislation would be brought in at this stage. I only wish to say, with regard to that, this measure was mentioned early in the session and was on the list of legislation which was to have been brought down, but it was dependent upon information which had to be gathered in the Peace river country particularly, and all across the northern part of the province of Alberta. I wish only to read to the house a statement which I made to the committee in 1950 when the Prairie Farm Assistance Act was being amended. It is found on page 72 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee:
I can give more assurance to my hon. friends. Since we met this morning and before the meeting this afternoon, we had a meeting of council and I discussed this matter with council, and they agreed with what I suggested. They think it should be retroactive in order to make the check that we want to make; and they are also committed to the undertaking I have given to the committee that if we find it is creating hardships which should not be created under the spirit of the act, we shall have amending legislation next year.
In order to explain what that had to do with my request may I say that we brought in legislation, as the house will recall, in 1950, which provided that prairie farm assistance would not be paid on certain lands which were in areas that had been open for homesteading prior to 1940, but had not been settled upon.	At that time it was
brought to our attention by members from the province of Alberta that there was a new area in the northern part of the province which should not come under that restriction. We gave an undertaking at that time that we would have our inspectors examine into that area carefully. We have had that examination made and we think that the payment should be made in the section of the country which is north of township 60. That will include the areas right across the north of the provinces in which new settlement has been made.

The payments are made under this legislation in December. If the legislation were agreed to now it would not be necessary for us at a later date to come back and make retroactive payments in connection with the year 1951. These cannot be made under the act as it now stands. Therefore I suggest that just a simple amendment be put in which says in effect that these payments may be made north of township 60 on lands which have been settled since January 1, 1941. I think that will meet the wishes of those who brought the question up during the time the matter was being considered in the committee on agriculture in 1950. I do not think it would necessitate any discussion on the general provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. If it were going to be the wish of the house, when the matter is considered, that there should be a discussion on the whole act, then I am afraid I would have to allow the legislation to fall by the wayside because I do not think there is time to do that this session.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Is it
intended that the restriction that now applies in the amendment passed last year will continue in Saskatchewan? If so, it is most unjust to the farmers in Saskatchewan who are in a position similar to those in Alberta who will get the benefit of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: In answer to the question, it does not have that effect. It is township 60 right across the provinces.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows perfectly well, coming from the west, that the line does not run straight east and west with regard to the settlement of these three prairie provinces. It runs from the northwest to the south, and the area affected in Saskatchewan is mostly between 45 and 60. Also the area in Manitoba is in that area, after this legislation passes.


Mr. Abbott:: Next session, next session.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: In answer to what has been said, and so that we may have an understanding of the position, there has been a complete examination made of the four provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba; and I think it can be very clearly shown, when this bill is before the house, that there is not anything at the moment along the line suggested by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). If any such thing should happen in the future, of course, the house is still here to take care of it.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that, notwithstanding standing order 60, I now leave the chair?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not ask that. It was simply to say that if there is going to be any .long discussion of the measure, then I do not wish to proceed with it at this session. If it can be permitted later on, when we come to the time to deal with it properly in the house, to proceed without a lengthy discussion, then I would like to proceed with it at this session in order to make it possible to make the payments in December, which otherwise would not be made.


Percy Ellis Wright: If there is going to be this discrimination, then there will certainly be discussion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Next session.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will see when we come to it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 37, respecting the general synod of the Church of England in Canada.-Mr. Fulford.
Bill No. 38, respecting the general synod of the Church of England in Canada and the missionary society of the Church of England in Canada.-Mr. Fulford.
Bill No. 39, to incorporate the Evangelical Mennonits Brethren of Canada.-Mr. Diefenbaker.
Bill No. 40, to incorporate the Sisters of Charity of the House of Providence.-Mr. Henderson.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce) for the second reading of Bill No. 41, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and to change its title to the Canada Elections Act.
Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the friendly Christmas feeling evidenced this morning thus far, I feel we are lucky indeed to live in a country with the form of government we have here in Canada. Many people across the Atlantic would be very glad if they .were in the same position.
1924	HOUSE OF
Dominion Elections Act
In the elections committee this year, as in many other years, there was a spirit of friendly co-operation. That co-operation lasted while matters proceeded as the majority desired-and that is perhaps as one might expect. I might add however that for a number of years I have been trying to bring to the attention of the house an improved system of voting. Four or five years ago I had a bill prepared by the law clerk and, by coincidence, on the morning my bill was placed in my hands there appeared in Votes and Proceedings another bill along similar lines in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson). Because of the rush of other business before the house at the session it was not possible to deal with that bill.
On different occasions since that time I have brought to the attention of the committee on elections the fact that we should improve our system of voting, and I believe the reason for bringing about that improvement has not been disputed thus far.
Looking into the records since the time of my first election in 1935, I find that a number of members have been elected to the House of Commons without having received a majority of the votes cast in their constituencies. In 1935, I find, 103 members were elected by majority votes, and 138 by minority votes. In 1940 there were 162 majority candidates, and 79 minority candidates. Then, in 1945- and this may appear strange-only 99 members were elected by majority votes, while 142 came to the House of Commons with minority votes. In the 1949 election 142 members were elected by majorities, and 116 by minorities. The government has approximately 190 seats out of 262 and I believe they got 49 per cent of the vote polled. In my opinion that is not giving the kind of representation to which we are entitled in a good country like Canada. There should be some other method of voting which will give us the proper representation and prevent any member coming to this house unless he has received at least 51 per cent of the vote polled.
In addition to myself and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, there are other people in Canada who feel that our system should be changed. About two and a half years ago the Canadian Chamber of Commerce took up this matter and considered it worthy of some research. They requested their various branches across the dominion to indicate what they thought about having another system of voting which would bring about the results I have mentioned, that is, not allowing a member to come here without having a majority of the votes cast in his constituency in a particular election.


The chamber of commerce stated that if a sufficient number of their branches across the country were in favour of having a change made they would press the matter further. Apparently that majority was obtained because they made a request to have another method of voting adopted. When the committee met during the last session another letter was received from the secretary of the chamber of commerce reminding the committee of the request that had been made by that organization.
To carry this along a little further, we find that in the election held on November 22 in Ontario the Progressive Conservatives obtained 79 seats although they received only 49 per cent of the votes; the Liberals obtained 7 seats although they received only 31 per cent of the vote, and the C.C.F. obtained 2 seats although they received 19 per cent of the vote. Anyone who considers those figures must realize that things are not as they ought to be. When people come here to speak for their constituents they should have better backing than many have at the present time.
In my own particular constituency there were five candidates running in 1945. Had the vote been split up fairly evenly it would have been possible for a member to have been sent here after receiving only 25 per cent of the vote, or perhaps even less. In my opinion that is not good business. In the last election there was one candidate elected in Toronto who received 38J per cent of the vote. This man belongs to the communist party. We are sending thousands of our men overseas and spending millions of dollars in fighting communism, yet under our method of voting one of their spokesmen sits in the legislature at Toronto. It may be necessary for me to deal more in detail with that a little later on.
This matter was brought up in the committee on November 15 last. I did not bring in an amendment at that time, but I did bring up the question for consideration. After I had explained this somewhat the chief electoral officer was called. I must say that he is doing a good job and in doing that he is following in his father's footsteps. Since I came here in 1936 I have had the best of cooperation and service from the former chief electoral officer and the gentleman who holds that office at the present time, and I think every hon. member of this house has had similar treatment. I hope that continues.
The chief electoral officer made quite an exhaustive presentation. There were two hon. members in particular who objected to the method of voting. I might say that in

Manitoba and Alberta we have a form of alternative vote, but that does not give the results which I want to get in the dominion elections. Under that system a person may vote for only one candidate and stop right there. That is what we call plumping. The result is that many members are elected without having a majority of the votes polled.
In Australia they have compulsory registration and compulsory voting. They use a system of marking ballots which I should like to see used here. I am not at this time suggesting that we have either compulsory registration or compulsory voting. The method that I advocate is that where there are three or more candidates on the ballot the voter must mark his choice right down the line. In doing that he can give his last choice to the fellow he least desires to be elected. I think that would take care of the trouble we have at the present time. I should like to quote from the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) before the committee, as reported on page 134 of the proceedings, as follows:
Mr. Chairman, we have the experience of 18 to 20 years ago with respect to this present system as it applied in the case of the election of the city council in the city of Vancouver. One of the outstanding recollections I have is that before they finally arrived at the names of the candidates who were elected a period of six days -had passed before the tabulation of the vote was completed. That was an obvious drawback, quite aside from the mental hazard. It seems to me that we would be getting away from the principles of democracy if we were to draft a section which would make it compulsory for an elector to vote for every man or woman whose name might appear on a ballot, particularly if such an individual might be a person for whom the voter would not want to vote.
Commenting on that statement I might say that the election in Vancouver which the hon. member referred to did not have the first thing to do with the argument I was presenting at that time. There were a number of candidates up for election on that occasion and several were to be elected whereas the system I am advocating would apply only to single-member constituencies. We have only two dual-member constituencies in Canada at the present time, Halifax and Queens. As far as the compulsory feature which he protests against is concerned, you are compelled to vote under our present method if you are going to have any say in the election. I do not think that marking your ballot in its entirety in order to keep out some undesirable candidate should be considered as a detrimental factor. The hon. member continued:
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is quite conceivable that in many of the electoral districts throughout the dominion of Canada, if this suggestion advanced by Mr. Fair carries, there might be various constituencies where among the four, five or six candidates 94699-123|
Dominion Elections Act whose names might be on the ballot paper there might happen to be a communist and you would have to mark a ballot for him. Now, speaking personally, I do not want to do that. It seems to me that in that way we might write into our electoral law, in the way of compulsion, something which would force the elector to vote for somebody whom he does not intend, desire or want to vote for and in doing that we would be countermanding the great principle upon which our democracy is built.
I come back again to the case of the communist member elected in Toronto on 38J per cent of the votes polled. If we had had the system which I advocate I am sure that in the legislature at Toronto there would not be a member of the communist party free to circulate the propaganda of that outfit. Then the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard had this to say:
Then again, as the chief electoral officer has pointed out, it is not applicable in dual member ridings. And now, if this principle was adopted in dual member ridings you would have to go on the basis of proportional representation, because this is only applicable to single member ridings; and if there ever was a headache in God's world it is this question of proportional representation and the counting of the vote. Without in anv way being discourteous to my good friend, Mr. Fair, I would like to suggest that we do not adopt this system of the single transferable vote for the federal seats.
I do not think we would have very much difficulty wi'.h the headache mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard because in the section of the country where there are dual member ridings only the old line parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, contest the elections. Therefore, so far as the arguments advanced by the hon. member are concerned, I do not feel there is anything valid in them. Then we come to another member from British Columbia who also spoke against the proposition. I refer to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). His statement can be found at page 137 of the proceedings of the special committee. He had this to say:
Before you vote, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my opinion. I appreciate Mr. Fair's presentation. I understand his argument for the alternative vote. But, speaking for the party I represent, I could not support that vote for these reasons:	The purpose of the single alternative
vote is to attempt to assure the election of candidates with an over-all majority of the number of electors supporting a candidate but, in order to be certain of that, it is obvious from the presentation by Mr. Fair and by the chief electoral officer, that there must be compulsion in so far as the voter is concerned in that he must mark his ballot for all the candidates whose names appear on that ballot, and the effect of that compulsion would be to force a man to vote for people for whom he does not wish to vote at all, and that in my opinion would be destroying the very objective of the change proposed in the voting system, because the voter would be required to vote for somebody whom he did not desire to vote for at all. A person would have to vote for some candidate or for something with whom or with which he did not agree. The second reason I would oppose the alternative vote

Dominion Elections Act -and I am sure that Mr. Fair would agree with me on this-is that it should be in effect in all the provinces now.
I do not think I need to go any further because there is very little more that is pertinent. First of all I would point out that there is compulsion in the present system of marking the ballot if you are going to have people register their choice. Carrying it a little further, registering their ballot against somebody whom they do not wish to have in office does not make it any more compulsory than at the present time. I was rather amused to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West object to the word "compulsion" because if he will read the program of his party I think he will find compulsion right along the line so far as he and the program of his party are concerned. He copied the arguments advanced-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Neither correct nor fair.


Robert Fair: -by the hon. member for
Vancouver-Burrard. To my mind these arguments are not valid. I believe they [DOT]only go to show that there is no argument whatever against adopting a system of voting that will give us fair representation. The question of education of the people is a very minor matter. In Manitoba and Alberta they have got along very well with the system of marking ballots 1, 2, 3, 4 and. so on, and I think the people of the other provinces would be just as quick as the people of Manitoba and Alberta to pick up that method of marking if they were only given the opportunity to do so.
This method is used in Australia, and only two or three per cent of the ballots are rejected. I believe that in Canada the percentage is possibly that high under the present system. We should aim to make progress in our system of voting and other things we do in Canada. This is one place where I believe we should make some advance. I realize it is not possible to get this matter through at the present session. I realize that people will have to have a little education and possibly give the matter some consideration, but I feel that if people all across Canada were given a true outline of the necessity for the change they would not hesitate for a moment to make themselves conversant with this method of marking ballots. I believe they would vote for something that is much more progressive and which is much more fair and democratic than our present system.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that I have spoken on this matter. In fact I think I have taken the opportunity at some time in every session since I have been a member to urge an


amendment to the elections act making provision for the use of the transferable vote. The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) has put on the record the results of the last three federal general elections. According to my figures, in the general election of 1949 some 121 members were elected by minority votes cast in their ridings. I have a short article here that appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune on August 24 of that year. It is a Canadian Press dispatch from Ottawa and reads:
A record total of 5,856,307 votes was cast in the June 27 general election compared with 5,246,130 in the 1945 election, it was disclosed Tuesday by Jules Castonguay, chief electoral officer. The Liberal party, returned to power with an overwhelming majority, received 2,926,029 votes in the last election compared with 2,170,625 in 1945. The Progressive Conservatives, second largest group in the commons, hold 1,742,235 compared with 1,455,453; the C.C.F., 790,321 against 822,661, and the Social Credit party 139,801 against 214,998.
These figures indicate that it required approximately 15,160 votes to elect a Liberal member in 1949 whereas it took approximately 42,540 votes to elect a Progressive Conservative. As has been pointed out, this situation might easily be reversed because in the recent Ontario election-and I have not seen a break-down yet-some 49 per cent of the votes cast elected 79 members to the Frost government out of a total of 90 seats. Before a candidate is declared elected I think it is very essential that he should have received a majority of the votes cast in the riding.
Those of us who have followed elections in the past know very well that there have been situations where a third and sometimes a fourth candidate has been brought into the field to split a certain vote. That has been recognized in several parts of the country, and it is only by an amendment providing for the transferable vote that you can overcome that system in an election. Where people can pretty well judge what the result will be I think it is very bad that a third or fourth candidate should be introduced simply to split the vote and change the representation of the riding. As I see it, that is not in the interests of democracy.
In the 1949 election just under 50 per cent of the vote resulted in the Liberal party obtaining 75 per cent of the seats. Thirty per cent of the vote resulted in the Progressive Conservatives obtaining 16 per cent of the seats. Thirteen per cent of the vote resulted in the C.C.F. winning 5 per cent of the seats, and 7 per cent of the vote gave the Social Credit party and others 4 per cent of the seats. That is a very unfair situation. At this late date I do not want to go into great detail. I want to repeat what the hon. member for Battle River said, namely, that

for a great many years this system has been in operation in the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba. I have read editorials in some eastern newspapers to the effect that it would make the determining of the result too complicated. I want to say that is far from the fact because if people will converse with those who have been in charge of the elections in Manitoba and Alberta they will find it is a simple matter to make these transfers and ascertain who has received a majority of the votes cast in a particular riding. I simply want to make this appeal once more. While it probably cannot be done at the present session, I ask the minister responsible and the members of the house to give serious consideration, before another general election is held, to amending the elections act in order to make provision for the transferable vote so that many things that have happened in the past will not be possible under what I think should be a democratic system of voting in this country.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I rise at this time simply for the purpose of recording briefly my opposition to one feature of the bill. The point in which I am interested emerges very clearly from a reading of the order as it appears on today's order paper. It is No. 11 and reads as follows:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of the Secretary of State for the second reading of Bill No. 41. an act to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and to change its title to the Canada Elections Act.
I have indicated on previous occasions my opposition to the process which we have now succeeded in bringing out into the open, the process of eliminating the word "Dominion" as a part of the official name or description of Canada. I wish now to record once more my opposition, my objection and my regret that this process should be continued. I am not going to make a speech at any length because there are a number of factors which indicate that one should not. However, I could not allow the bill to be given second reading without again recording my position.
I put my objection on two grounds. First there is the ground of sentiment-or tradition, if you like-and second, the ground of logic. I object to the stupidity and irritations which accompany and are made necessary by this unnecessary process of changing the name. On the second ground let me point out the position we have now arrived at as a result of this process. Apparently we have to sit down and solemnly change every section of this art. It will of course be necessary to make technical amendments to every section of every bill where the word "dominion" appears in order to carry out this process. And it
Dominion Elections Act has got to the point now where the logical conclusion of that process has carried us to the absurd position where we have to sit down solemnly and say, in the piece of legislative nonsense found in section 2 of the bill, that if the word "dominion" happens to appear in any place in connection with an election in the future it shall not invalidate the whole election. One only has to follow the proposition a little further to see the absurdity of the position in which this process gets us, because after all, if you are going to eliminate a word, you have to ban it. So I suppose at some future date we shall have to sit down, if this government is to be consistent-and if it is allowed to remain in office-to study another enactment in similar form which will result from carrying the process to the ultimate point. It would then be necessary to provide that if the word "Dominion" does appear in any way in connection with an election, then it shall invalidate the whole election.
So you see, Mr. Speaker, the absurd, illogical and rather humiliating position in which this process lands us. Because it is so illogical, because it is so unnecessary, and because I find it so objectionable, I am not able to allow this bill to pass without recording once more my objection to that process.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I take just a minute, or two at the most, to say a word on the point raised by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair). I agree with those who contend that there should be improvements in our method of voting. It is certainly wrong that 49 per cent of the popular vote should result in some 72 per cent of the seats of this house being held by one party. I agree that something should be done about it. But I do want to enter this word of warning. In my view the single transferable vote would create as many problems as it would solve, if not more. I suggest that if we are going to go in for electoral reform, consideration will have to be given not to the single transferable vote but to a system of proportional representation, which is something quite different. After all, the aim of a democratic election is much broader than the position of any individual candidate. The aim of a democratic election is to get a parliament that is somehow representative of the political thinking of the people of the country. It is for that reason that I suggest if we are going to consider electoral reform, we should not adopt the single transferable vote which creates as many problems as it solves, but rather we should establish a system of proportional representation.

Dominion Elections Act


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: I should like to say a word on this subject. I do not believe anyone can accuse me of taking up too much of the time of the house. I am more or less in agreement with the statement made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). He spoke in French so I did not understand it all, and Hansard is not available this morning. From what I could learn about his speech-


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: May I interrupt to say that I have given the hon. member for Temiscouata the assurance that when we reach that section of the bill we shall drop it.


John George Diefenbaker: We have set aside all the rules here.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The hon. member stated that he was more in favour of the old system of voting. The election officers at the polls throughout the Dominion of Canada are more familiar with that system. Any time a new system of voting is introduced I think it should be the subject of study not only in our high schools but in the senior grades of our public schools. No matter whether it is the single transferable vote or any other system, it should be taught in our schools. If the older people who are able to vote do not understand the system, then the children will bring home the information, and will familiarize the older people with it. I am glad to hear the minister state that that part of the bill will be dropped. I might say that I am always happy to listen to the hon. member for Temiscouata, but I have a greater appreciation of his remarks when he speaks in English rather than French.
I should like to say a word about the advanced polls. At this last election the province of Ontario tried out a system of more advance polls in the ridings. I believe it was quite unsatisfactory. It did not accomplish much. It seems to me that one advance poll to a riding, in a central place, would be the proper system, unless it is an extremely large riding in which case you might have two. But to have three, four or five advance polls in a riding, involving a great deal of expense, with nothing being derived from having them, does not seem to be worth while. In my riding at many of these advance polls there were only two or three ballots in the ballot box. Those advance polls cost the government a considerable amount of money, having regard to the fact that there was a returning officer and a poll clerk to be paid, and that the polling booth was rented for three days. For the number of votes cast in those advance polls, it was not worth the expense involved.


I think something should be done in the way of getting more people out to vote. In the last federal election 75 per cent of the voters went to the polls. In Russia, I believe, 99 per cent of the eligible voters went to the polls.


Gordon Graydon: They had better go.


Mr. Fulford:: They are shot if they do not vote.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I should not like to see any such law that is in effect in Russia brought into effect in Canada; far from it. But I think something should be done by way of legislation so that people would exercise their franchise more than they have exercised it in the past.
I should like to pass on to the chief electoral officer the facts about these advance polls, because I have heard that at dominion elections there will be more advance polls than there have been in the past. If he will look up what happened in Ontario at the advance polls in the last election, it will give him some idea of the value of advance polls.
Another objection I have is in connection with changing the name and doing away with the old traditional name "Dominion) of Canada". I do not care what act is passed here or what legislation is put on the statute books of Canada, it will always be the Dominion of Canada to me and to most of my constituents. I think that in my riding I could win an election on that issue alone; and I think the situation is the same in many other ridings in Canada.
Why there is a desire to change the name, I do not know. The name "Dominion of Canada" is probably only an old tradition, but it is dear to the hearts of many of the people of Canada. When Canada was first thought of, we had Upper Canada and Lower Canada. That was quite all right. But when we had confederation, it was called the Dominion of Canada. I have the dictionary here, and I was reading the meaning of the word "dominion". The dictionary says it means sovereignty, control; domains of feudal lord, territory of sovereign or government; name given to Canadian colonies after they were united in 1867; right of possession.
I do not know why anybody has any objection to "Dominion of Canada" as a name. In Canada we have two great races. Let us unite them rather than try to divide them. We have heard a great deal about this word "tolerance". I do not know in what dictionary to look, but, as I understand it, it is a big word with many meanings. After all, I think the time is now ripe for

the people of Canada to pull together, with no faction trying to pull us apart. To the government or those who are at the bottom of this move to change the name of the Dominion of Canada, by taking off the word "dominion", and those who bring in bills for a new flag or for a new national anthem, and all this silly nonsense that is not at all necessary, may I say that it will not help us a bit in Canada, commercially, religiously or politically but that it will have a tendency to draw our people apart. I say that it is a heap of nonsense and that it is ridiculous, coming from people who are elected and who are supposed to be leaders. We are supposed to be leaders in our own community. Yet here we are down here and, instead of leading our people together, we are trying to divide the country and to divide our people on various issues. It is a heap of nonsense, as far as I am concerned.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Probably the hon. member's constituency is different from mine. I do not agree that it is any better because of being different from mine, because I represent the best riding in Canada, bar none. In my riding we have the greatest cross-section of people that there is any place in Canada. We have settlements of all the different races and that sort of thing, and they are becoming welded together over the years. For someone to say: Because there are a lot of Germans in my riding, or a lot of French or a lot of Dutch, I do not agree with you, and that sort of thing, is just some more nonsense. Everybody who comes to Canada comes because he wants to do so, because he likes this country and because he wants to make it his home. After these people come here the law should provide that they become Canadians, and I think that 90 per cent of them will become Canadians. I hope so, anyhow. But these people who are coming to our shores now will never become Canadians if we cannot agree among ourselves about the one little word "dominion" in the "Dominion of Canada".


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to make a few remarks when the bill had gone into committee, but in view of the speeches which have been made, I think perhaps this would be a better place to express my opinion. I believe that this change, doing away with the word "dominion" in the Dominion Elections Act, is unwise for two reasons. In the first place, that word has great value in enabling people to distinguish between dominion and provincial election law. In the province of British Columbia we had a provincial election
Dominion Elections Act within one week, I think it was, of the dominion election in 1949. In 1945 the elections were also held at dates which were quite close together. It is hard enough to keep the election activities separate without having all dominion election material showing just the word "election" rather than the two words "dominion election". From a practical point of view I think it is unwise to make this change. People understand the word "dominion" as meaning the difference between dominion and provincial with regard to elections; and if there is one act in which we should keep the word "dominion" it is this election measure.
My second objection is based on the ground that hundreds of thousands of people in this country-in fact, I believe millions of people -place great value on the word "dominion" and they resent this policy of the government of making that word almost out of order, as we would say in this house. To Canadians who feel as I do about the matter, the word "dominion" implies vastness. It means that we think of Canada as a great country, extending from sea to sea and from the boundary of the United States to the northern reaches. It is something of which we are proud. It makes us think of this country as one of the great nations of the world.
I admit that in other parts of Canada the word may not have that same meaning. To us it implies in no way whatsoever subservience to any other race, any other nation or to anyone at all. It implies no subjection and no inequality with them. Such an interpretation does not enter into our thinking. We are no less proud of the word "Canada". I remember the great pride with which I wore the word "Canada" on my shoulder straps overseas, and I am sure that the feeling was held by every Canadian in the Canadian corps in the first war. No doubt it was just the same with Canadians who served in the second world war. We threw our shoulders around a bit just because the word "Canada" was on those shoulder straps. But little did I think that 35 years from that time I would be sitting in a Canadian House of Commons and hearing the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) making statements which insinuated that anyone who wanted to use the word "dominion" was not a good Canadian. That was the effect of the statements made by the Prime Minister on that occasion in this house a few weeks ago when this question was up. I resent the Prime Minister of Canada, no matter what his party may be, taking that stand toward any Canadian who believes that the word "dominion" should be continued.
1930	HOUSE OF
Dominion Elections Act
I am not alone in that resentment. I hold in my hand an editorial from the Vancouver Sun, dated November 15, 1951. By the way, the Vancouver Sun is one of the most ardent supporters of this government, yet I read from their editorial dealing with this question the following:
For instance, Ottawa has quietly dropped the word "dominion" from Canada's title. It has been quietly dropping the word "royal" from the mails.
What is Mr. St. Laurent trying to achieve? Where is he going to stop?
These piddling manoeuvres seem aimed chiefly at the appeasement of sectional prejudice.
I warn the government-and I would be interested to hear the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) justify the policy of dropping the word "dominion"-I warn the government that this policy is creating serious misgivings in the part of the country which I have the honour to represent. This policy is creating mistrust, and I believe it is tending toward disunity at a time when this nation could drive ahead to a destiny which no Canadian has ever even imagined in the years gone by. We have these tremendous resources just being developed, iron ore, oil, titanium and uranium. We have great material wealth, and all we need now is to go ahead and develop the country and become the greatest nation in the world.
I do suggest that it is most unwise for the government to be following a policy of this kind, which is just one of those things that make trouble between Canadians, trouble which could so easily be avoided. The government has delayed and hedged on a national flag for Canada, in spite of having a recommendation some years ago which was practically unanimous. It has hedged on a national anthem; hedged on these things, and yet is going ahead to wipe out this word "dominion". What on earth the ministers think they are going to achieve by a policy of this kind I do not know. They are doing it a little bit at a time. One bill this week, another bill next week and something else next year. Surely, that type of policy is much too petty for the Canadian people in the year 1951.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York Wesi):: I want to make just one observation on this bill. In the recent Ontario election it was found that when the enumeration took place a great many people, particularly when there was somebody boarding in the house, were reluctant to give the names of the boarders. That was for the very obvious reason that they were frightened the information so given would be used and passed over to the Department of National Revenue for investigation purposes. This was quite prevalent. There should be a section in the act, as there is in 

the act dealing with the department of the dominion bureau of statistics-I suppose it is called the dominion bureau of statistics, although I suppose that will be changed fairly soon. There is a section in the legislation dealing with the dominion bureau of statistics which says that all information so given shall be given in confidence and that no use will be made of it by any other department of government.
One of the essential secrecies is the secrecy of the ballot. While naturally the names are published in the voters' lists, nevertheless I should like to have this point considered before the next federal-or whatever the election will be called, whether it will be called a dominion election or what-before the next federal election, and something put into the act to show that information given to the enumerators will be for the purposes of the elections act and for the purposes of the elections act alone. I mention this because today, particularly in ridings such as mine, a tremendous number of people are sharing accommodation. It is a very essential thing that that shall be continued because of the congestion and housing shortage. Because of that many people who would not normally do so have taken in others to help in what is still an emergency situation. They are reluctant to give the names or to admit that there are others sharing accommodation in their houses with them. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that consideration be given to these points in the act.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up what has been said by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson). I know that at the time of the last federal election and also the provincial election, when people running boarding houses or rooming houses were asked by the enumerators as to who lived in those houses, invariably the answer was, "Mr. and Mrs. Jones". Then, when the inquiry was made if there was anybody else, the answer was no.
An attempt has been made to find out why this is done, and two reasons have been advanced. The first is that in the city these boarding house and rooming house operators are afraid that because they have boarders or roomers their property assessment may be raised. The second reason is their fear that perhaps the income tax collector might catch up with them.
In common with the hon. member for York West, I feel there should be some way of making these boarding and rooming house operators responsible for supplying the names of the people in their houses. Surely they should give those names. In the elections of

1940, 1945 and 1949 many people who had lived in boarding houses for twenty or thirty years were left off the lists. That is not right, because they are deprived of their vote. They say that when the enumerator called they were at their work, and that each year they have to check the voters' lists to see if their names appear. The names of these people are even left off the municipal lists, and for the same reason.
While I am on my feet may I make a vigorous protest against the substitution of the word "Canada" for the word "Dominion" in the Dominion Elections Act. In my view this is a slur against the people of Canada, against people who have thought of this country of ours as the Dominion of Canada since school days. Soon I fear there will be an effort to take the word "dominion" from our national holiday, the first of July. It has been tried already by this government, through its members and the cabinet. This is no less than chiselling on the people of Canada in regard to the use of the word "dominion".
The people are protesting. I have before me petitions from many organizations. Only a few days ago I received one signed by seventy-two members, and another one signed by fifty members of the Imperial Order, Daughters of the Empire. These people are protesting, and I do not blame them.
The Imperial Order, Daughters of the Empire is founded on British principles. Now, however, there is an attempt to chisel, and to take those principles away, in short to take away everything that is British. The word "dominion" is part of our tie-up with the crown. I protest against this change, and I say the name of the act should not be changed. Further, everything else that has been described as "dominion" should continue to be described in that way.
It is difficult for anyone to abbreviate the word "dominion", or the expression "Dominion of Canada". There is no such difficulty, however, in abbreviating the word "Canada" because, on more than one occasion in foreign countries I have seen "Canada" abbreviated to "Can.". I object to this, and I know there are thousands upon thousands of people in Canada who feel as I do-that "Dominion" should stay.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I was not privileged to serve on the committee which considered the provisions of this bill. However, on this motion for second reading I have some suggestions.
In connection with our elections law, I believe we should have the desire if at all possible to effect the greatest possible degree
Dominion Elections Act of uniformity in connection with the holding of elections, and the regulations applying thereto, both federally and provincially.
In the main session of the Ontario legislature, immediately preceding the last one, a change was made in the Ontario Elections Act, at which time the province attempted to combine the best features of the provincial law with the best features of the Dominion Elections Act. I believe all hon. members will agree that at the last provincial election the change proved beneficial.
I believe there may be some excellent provisions in some of the provincial election laws which could be incorporated in our dominion act. One of these is the elasticity now provided in the Ontario act in connection with advance polls. In that regard I believe the regulations under the dominion law are much too rigid. It must be realized that all people cannot be in the same place on election day, and it is my suggestion that our regulations should not be as rigid as they are. I can see no reason why in our Dominion Elections Act we should not have some provision in connection with advance polls which would be practical and along the lines of that now obtaining in Ontario. Many people in the province found it a great convenience and a matter of accommodation for their benefit when, at the time of the recent provincial election in Ontario, they were able to vote at advance polls, although they may not have been commercial travellers, trainmen or such others as would fall within the narrow classification set out in the Dominion Elections Act.
I suggest that even at this late stage the minister and the chief electoral officer, both of whom no doubt have given the matter considerable study, should consider expanding and liberalizing the federal regulations so as to include many people who normally are denied the use of the franchise because they move from place to place on election day.
Then, I am not at all satisfied with our polling hours. I have been trying to ascertain whether the new changes make any provision for a change in the polling hours, and I have failed to find any such change. I believe the hours we now specify for purposes of polling in Canada are unrealistic. They may work out all right in some places, but in my view polling from eight to six does not offer encouragement to people to go to the polling booths in large numbers. I have referred to the hours eight to six with some degree of uncertainty, owing to the fact that the polling hours in federal, provincial and municipal elections are all different.
In the county of Peel are hundreds of commuters-perhaps even more than that-and

Dominion Elections Act it is not easy for those commuters, who work at some distance from their homes, to find time to vote, under the present voting hours. If you happen to live at Clarkson, Lome Park or Port Credit on the Canadian National line you have no time to vote either before the train leaves or after it gets back. It is all very well to say that employers allow two or three hours off, but two or three hours off is no good if there is no train to take you to the polling booth. It is unrealistic and it seems to me it would help considerably if the evening limit were extended one hour. We should consider how these hours affect people who commute.
The conditions today are quite different from those which prevailed previously in connection with elections. I suppose if some kind of inventory were taken of the people who work some distance from where they live we would find that the whole complexion has changed. I know in Malton which is in my constituency there are people who come to work at the A. V. Roe company from as far away as sixty-five and seventy miles. The same thing happens over and over again in other communities. This is due to the changes in industrial locations and housing conditions.
Before this bill finally passes I think we should give consideration to people who live some distance from where they work and revise the hours of voting accordingly. I have tried to be constructive in my suggestions. The advance poll system which worked out so well in the provincial election should be incorporated into the federal structure.
There is another matter I should like to mention and to which no doubt the minister has given consideration. It is confusing to find that there is an entirely different set of regulations governing voting in federal, provincial and municipal elections. The less complicated we can make our election machinery, the easier it will be for people to understand how to record their opinions from time to time. Not long ago in this debate an hon. member suggested that something should be done in the schools. I agree with that, but the only thing is that if you teach children how to vote federally, how to vote provincially and then how to vote municipally they are going to be just as confused as the electors. We should try to reach some form of unanimity if it is at all possible.
It may be that that is not possible. Ontario has gone a long way toward reaching unanimity with the federal government in connection with the recording of the franchise in that province. I rose to say these things


because of what I have encountered personally. They are not theoretical views; they are views which I think should be considered before this bill is passed.


Angus MacInnis: Mr,
Speaker, I have been wondering whether 1 should say anything in this debate, but I think I had better because everyone else seems to have something to say. I want to support what the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said last night with regard to the disqualification of certain people in federal elections because they are disqualified in provincial elections. In past years a fairly large number of voters in British Columbia were disqualified in this way for reason of race. Fortunately that discrimination has been eliminated from the Dominion Elections Act. At this time I want to thank the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) for the help he gave me a few years ago in clearing up that situation.
When this discrimination was in effect it was thought that all kinds of evil things would occur if the vote were granted to those of our citizens of oriental origin. But it has been done and so far nothing catastrophic has happened. Everyone agrees that Canada is growing by leaps and bounds. As a matter of fact, I think most people feel that it was a shame that that discrimination was allowed to exist for so long.
Then a word with regard to the Douk-hobors. These people are lumped together under that name whereas they should be divided into two categories. There is a small group known as the Sons of Freedom who do not want to be assimilated into Canadian society; they want to remain as a group apart. I am all in favour of refusing the privileges of Canadian citizenship to those who are not ready to assume the responsibilities that go with that citizenship.
However, I think the great majority of Doukhobors in British Columbia wish to become good Canadians and they should be given every opportunity to do so. One essential opportunity is the right to choose, along with other people, the men and women who make the laws of this country. I hope that in this case the minister will be as helpful as he was before in regard to orientals, and will have as clear an understanding of the issues involved.
I should like to refer briefly to another point which has been brought up by several speakers, that is, changing the name of the act from Dominion Elections Act to Canada Elections Act. I hope I am a good Canadian. I try to be. I flatter myself on occasions that I need not try, that it comes natural for me

to be a good citizen. I cannot see that anything is going to happen because we change the title of this act from Dominion Elections Act to Canada Elections Act.
The other day my good friend, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), brought to my attention a letter that was reprinted in the Ottawa Journal from the Toronto Globe and Mail which had been written by another good friend of mine, Eugene Forsey, protesting against this change. Mr. Forsey has been a friend of mine for many years, I respect his opinions and I appreciate his friendship. However, on this occasion I think my opinion is just as good as his. I disagree with him, but I am quite sure that that will not make any difference in our friendship. We will both be just as good Canadians as we were before the change was made from Dominion Elections Act to Canada Elections Act.
I had occasion to say something on this matter a few evenings ago and what I did say was said on -the spur of the moment. I thought I should be sure of my ground and I had a look at the British North America Act. I find that the word "dominion" is mentioned three times, I believe, and so far as I can ascertain it is confined to the first and second pages of the act. From then on every reference to this country is to "Canada". It says in the preamble, I believe, that there shall be one dominion under the name of Canada. From then on every reference is to "Canada" and not "Dominion of Canada".
For example, section 17 reads:
There shall be one parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an upper house styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.
We have dropped the Queen, and other words become obsolete for various reasons as time goes on. What I should like to point out, however, is that when -the bill is passed it will be grouped with all other acts of parliament and put into a book which we call the Statutes of Canada, not "Dominion statutes" but "Statutes of Canada". Is there any reason why we should not call it the Canada Elections Act and have it in harmony with the other statutes?
Someone mentioned the question of Canada abroad. I think we are coming close to the time when as much of the work of our cabinet ministers will be in the international field as in the national field. A week or two ago I counted the number of cabinet ministers who were absent attending international conferences of one kind or another, and I found there were five or six. That is the case all the year round. At every one of these conferences Canada is known not by the name "Dominion of Canada" or "dominion"
Dominion Elections Act but by the name "Canada". The sign on the tables where our delegates sit has the word "Canada" on it. Surely there is nothing derogatory in the term. We are not adding to or taking anything away from this or any other act by changing the name. A few years from now we will be wondering why we spent so much time talking about it.


Mr. Brooks:: I should like to ask the hon. member if Australia is dropping the name "Commonwealth of Australia" and is South Africa dropping the name "Union of South Africa"? They are also known as South Africa and Australia.


Angus MacInnis: I do not know whether or not they are, but I know that in referring to Australia we speak of Australia, and when they refer to us I imagine they refer to us as Canada. Words of this kind become a fetish. We are afraid to drop them because they are like strings. When we grow up we drop our connection with the family. Surely that comes about naturally, and I believe the process has taken place naturally here. It is not forced. If I thought anyone was doing what we are doing for some ulterior purpose I would oppose it to the very limit, but I do not think that is the case, and I think there is no harm in it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You should read the editorials in certain newspapers.


Angus MacInnis: Who are the editors anyway, and what do they know? They talk about different things and often do not know much about them.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron North):: I should like to say a few words on this matter. The hon. member who has just taken his seat is agreeable to change the name "dominion". I noticed that during the speech he made he several times used the phrase "Dominion Elections Act" when he meant "Canada Elections Act".


Angus MacInnis: No, no.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Oh, yes.


Angus MacInnis: The change has not been made yet, and I was referring to the act as it is, not to the act as it is going to be, because the change may not be made.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: When the hon. member reads his speech tomorrow he will find out that he used that phrase because it has become so familiar to him. I do not think there is any need whatever to change the name "Dominion". I am one of those who believe that Churchill is perhaps the greatest man this world has known. More than that, I think he is responsible for the fact that we have a Canada at all in this day and age.

Dominion Elections Act Had it not been for Churchill's bluff for at least one year, Hitler would have taken Canada. There is no question about that. If you take the word "Dominion" away from Canada you weaken the name because you have taken half of it away. I am one of those who object strongly to the removal of the name "Dominion of Canada".
I believe there are many changes that could be made in the elections act. As a matter of fact, there are certain things for which a candidate can pay and things for which he cannot pay. We all know that these things are paid for, perhaps by someone else with the candidate's money or perhaps with someone else's money. It is not legal for the candidate to pay for these things, but the fact remains that somebody pays for them. I am one of those who believe in honesty. We now have an election act which states that the candidate cannot do this and cannot do that, but those things are done. The act could be changed so that we would have a better act, and we would at least have clearer consciences.
I only rose for these few minutes to put on the record my objection to the elimination of the word "dominion". I agree with those who have spoken before me, with the exception of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). The fact that he used the name "dominion" two or three times in his speech proves that he has become so accustomed to using it that I believe even after the name is changed he will be using that name more than the other.


Mr. Hees:: It is one o'clock, so may I move
the adjournment of the debate?


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) whether he can give us the order of business for the remainder of the day? Last night he only mentioned the first three bills, and we would like to know what the order is to be after those three are called.


Alphonse Fournier: I should like to know it myself. I believe we will be on the elections act for quite a while.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at two o'clock.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to agree completely with what the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said this morning concerning the desirability of extending the hours of voting by having the polls close at 7 o'clock in the evening instead of at 6 o'clock. From practical observation I believe that 50 per cent of [Mr. Cardiff.!

the vote is cast in the last two hours. If the polls close at 6 o'clock, many people who live in urban centres, and who work at a considerable distance from their homes, simply cannot or do not get home in time to vote. If the closing time were extended to 7 p.m., the vote cast would be increased by at least 10 per cent.
We all believe that the successful functioning of a democracy depends upon a large number of people exercising their franchise. What the hon. member for Peel suggested this morning was a simple way of making it possible for considerably more people to cast their vote in an election than are able to do so now. This practice of voting until 7 p.m. has been successfully followed in several of the provinces, and I want to recommend to the government that they give serious consideration to extending this practice to our dominion elections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. McLure:: I have something to say about this bill. I should like to comment on the first section, which possibly contains the main reason we have this bill before us. It is proposed to change the title from the Dominion Elections Aet, 1938, to the Canada Elections Act. I believe it is unfortunate that at the present time there seems to be so much dislike, you might almost say hatred, abroad in this government for the name "Dominion". It is hard for us to understand the reason why this feeling exists. It is unfortunate that now, when we should have the greatest unity in our country, there should be this policy against the name of "dominion" which causes bitter feelings between people who might otherwise live in harmony and unity. The move started some time ago when such words as "royal" seemed to have engendered a certain amount of hatred.
We are now dealing with a change in this elections act. There are other changes in the bill, but they will be dealt with later. I was pleased to have a clipping in which that great Prime Minister of England, Churchill, during the course of an introduction of Princess Elizabeth to her distinguished Guild audience, referred to our country as "that great dominion". Surely, a man of that calibre must not have been aware of the fact that we in this country have got ourselves into a frenzied state against the use of the name "dominion" or he would not have referred to the country as "that, great dominion". Many articles have been written about this matter but I am not going

to prolong the debate by reading a lot of them. Here is one from a newspaper that calls itself independent, though I would say it was more or less a Liberal newspaper. The article reads:
The most high-handed act of grand larceny perpetrated in this country in the life of this generation was the sneak-thief style of filibustering perpetrated to deprive this great dominion of its complete name. Indignation is seething and the people may yet have something to say about it.
I think we should have something to say about it. I think the government should realize that they have gone far enough, and leave us with the name the Dominion Elections Act, 1938. If they want to change it to 1951, that is all right, but let us have unity amongst us. This is an old name and a glorious name. It stands for a glorious country, so why not keep it? The Dominion of Canada is good enough for me.
(Translation):


Mr. Couriemanche:: I do not want to prolong the debate unduly but I do wish to congratulate the committee on having replaced the word "dominion" by the word "Canada."
I have the greatest respect for the empire but it is time to do away with those colonial links, which speak for our weakness and dependency. It is not as colonials but as Canadians that we have made almost superhuman sacrifices and efforts. It is time to understand, once and for all, that it is our duty to administer public affairs in the interests of Canada and not those of the empire.
(Text):


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, Canada is a great country. Canada is now recognized internationally as a great power. The role we had during the war of 1914-18 and the major role we took during the last war have been recognized and appreciated throughout the western world. I am pleased to note that Canada has assumed this status, a,nd is recognized as an independent member of the commonwealth which is one of the greatest associations of nations that our civilization has known. Unfortunately for me, since I am a Conservative, I have to congratulate the government upon its action in eliminating the word "dominion." I hope it is the last time I have to congratulate the government. I have been here for two years, and I think it is the first time I have had that opportunity. To come back to this word "dominion"-


An hon. Member:: Move over to this side.
Dominion Elections Act


Léon Balcer: Do not worry about that. In
Webster's New International Dictionary under the definition of the word "dominion", I read these words:
Dominion:	That which is subject to sovereignty
or control . . . territory governed, or over which authority is exercised.
In another dictionary, Funk and Wagnalls, I find this definition:
Obedience, servitude, slavery, subjection, subjugation, submission.
I think that everyone in this chamber will admit those definitions do not apply to our great country. I know that every member cf the committee is too much of a Canadian to admit that such definitions or such adjectives should be applied to our great country.
I am also proud of the fact that the Conservative party at the time of confederation was in favour of adopting the status of kingdom for this country. I want to mention this fact. According to Dr. Maurice Ollivier in his book "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty":
Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Georges Etienne Cartier were of the opinion:
1.	That the name of the federation be that of Kingdom of Canada.
2.	That the federation should have the rank of a kingdom.
3.	That the new arrangement should terminate the rule of Secretary of State for the colonies.
4.	That the executive head should be the King himself or his representative.
5.	That the authority of the Imperial Parliament should be only a fiction.
Another great Conservative in another country, another member of the commonwealth, namely the Marquis of Salisbury in Great Britain, when Prime Minister Attlee in 1947 brought into the House of Commons a bill to change the name of Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to the name of Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, welcomed the change with the comment that the title of "Dominion's Office" has always been open to objection, and I quote:
... in that it might be interpreted as implying that the governments of the commonwealth are dominions of Great Britain and to that extent of inferior status to her.
I have been here just long enough to appreciate the fact that all the members of this chamber are really proud of the commonwealth of nations as it is. I think the British commonwealth is an association of free countries which work hand in hand to promote the great principles of civilization, with not one single member inferior to the other and not a single one superior to the other.
I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the government and the committee have decided to

Dominion Elections Act change the name of this act to make it more in accordance with the spirit of the fathers of confederation and to make it in accordance with the British North America Act. In the British North America Act, in section 3 it is stated:
. . . the Provinces of Canada, of Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the name ox Canada.
In section 4 of the same act it is stated:
. . . unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this act.
I have looked into the act and I have counted 156 references to the word "Canada" but never once have I come across the words "Dominion of Canada." By changing the name of the Dominion Elections Act to Canada Elections Act I think this country is showing something that is fairly well admitted all across this country, namely that we are now a free and independent member of an association of nations, that we are a great country and that we are respected throughout the world as a great, independent country. I am sure that this move will be welcomed, and I hope it will be welcomed as a move that was first brought by great Conservatives like Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Georges Etienne Cartier.


Mr. Rinfrei:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word on this question. I wish to congratulate the two last speakers on the stand they have taken. If they are in accord with our general policy they should probably come across the floor of the chamber and stand with the Liberals, because that is the policy of the government as enunciated by the Prime Minister some time ago. After all, if four or five Tory supporters dissociated themselves from the Tory party-


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege may I say that I think the minister is putting words into my mouth and attributing to me intentions that are absolutely not mine. I think that every member in this committee has the right to freedom of speech. If for once I happen to be of the same opinion as the government on one single detail, it does not mean that I do not belong to a party which is strong enough and powerful enough to win the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Léon Balcer: I hope that the minister will not attribute to me any such intention.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I will change my words and I will say that this is indicative of the Tory platform of one policy in Quebec and another policy in the rest of Canada.
[Mr. Balcer.)


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister would make a great judge.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is exactly what I am doing now. I am trying to judge your actions.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You would be no better on the bench than you are here.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The hon. member for Victoria
(Onit.) this morning referred to various questions of the flag and the anthem as being silly nonsense. I am of the opinion that anything that brings together Canadians of various nationalities and various origins is not silly nonsense at all but is something that we must aim at. The sooner we can agree on the things we have in common the better it will be for the whole of Canada. When words are used in this house describing as silly nonsense the things that are sacred to other parts of the country I think they do a great deal of harm to our country.
This morning the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra referred to the word "dominion" as being necessary, particularly in the elections act, because of the fact that there has to be a differentiation between the federal government and the provincial governments..


Howard Charles Green: Elections.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: He referred to the fact that in British Columbia in one week's interval there was a provincial election and a dominion election, and that there was some confusion about the title of the two acts. The differentiation or the distribution of power is governed by the British North America Act, and particularly by sections 91 and 92. Section 91 refers to the various things that the federal government can do, and section 92 refers to what the legislatures can do. It is very noticeable that in section 91 there is no reference to the word "dominion". Section 91 reads:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces; . . . the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada . . .
Therefore on one side we have the powers of the government of Canada and on the other, under section 92, the powers of the legislatures of the provinces. If therefore we call our elections act "Canada Elections Act" we are following explicitly the wording of section 91.
This morning the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra said that 35 years ago he was very proud to have a uniform bearing on its shoulders one word and that he was always keeping his chest up because he was

proud of that one word. Mr. Chairman, what was that word written on his shoulder in the first war and in the second war? It was not "Dominion of Canada", but the one word "Canada".
The hon. member for Queens referred to that one word as being a glorious one. I think it is a glorious one and should be borne by every Canadian on his shoulder, and he should put his chest out for that one word.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I was referring to the word "dominion". I am very glad that the minister has the same views on the word "dominion".


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am sorry that I cannot have the same views as to the word "dominion".


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: You said before you had.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The reason I rose was that reference was made this morning to the fact that the word "royal" had been taken out of royal mail. An editorial was cited this morning, referring to what happened in the dying days of the last session whereby the Postmaster General is supposed to have taken away from the title the word "royal". I tried to explain then and I will try to explain again that the words "royal mail" have never been in the Canada postal act. In 1867-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a point of order. Is a discussion on royal mail or the Post Office Act relevant to the matter now before the committee?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: He was out of order long ago.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: This morning reference was made to the same question, and I think I have a right to answer that reference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two wrongs do not make a right.


The Chairman:: Reference was made to it this morning, and I ask the minister to reply briefly.


Arza Clair Casselman: Easily led.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I will just say, Mr. Chairman, that never at any time in any postal act was there the word "royal". In 1867, in 1927 and again in 1951 the word "royal" never appeared in any postal act. The words "royal mail" refer to the mail of Great Britain. A prime minister of Great Britain referred to royal mail as distinct from Canada mail, Australia mail, New Zealand mail, and I hope this is the last we hear about it, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Arsenault:: I rise just for a few minutes to congratulate my friends the hon. member for Labelle and the hon. member for Three Rivers on their courageous stand in this house, and to say a few words to my ex-Conservative friends in this house-perhaps three things. Firstly, I think-
Dominion Elections Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are the ex-Conservative.


Bona Arsenault: An ex-Conservative became a good Liberal. Firstly, Canada, in the British North America Act, was never mentioned by the name "Dominion of Canada". The name was "one dominion under the name of Canada". That fact was established by many in this house, by the Prime Minister, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others, that Canada is one dominion under the name "Canada." I wish we could put that into the mimdis of hon. members once and for all.
Secondly, Canada as a dominion ceased to be a dominion the day in 1931 that the Statute of Westminster provided that all the nations of the commonwealth are:
Autonomous communities within the British empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.
Therefore, if Canada is a dominion, then the United Kingdom is a dominion and the United States is a dominion. On the one hand, previous to the Statute of Westminster -I wish my hon. friends of the Conservative party would take a few notes at this time- previous to the Statute of Westminster, no legislature in Canada could pass any law repugnant to the law of the United Kingdom. Under the statute, no law enacted in the future by Canada or any of its provinces shall be void on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of the United Kingdom.
On the other hand, the legislature of the United Kingdom cannot, under the Statute of Westminster, pass any act extending to Canada as part of the Canadian law unless it is expressly declared in the act that the Canadian parliament has requested and consented to the enactment.
Another provision of the Statute of Westminster states that neither Canada, nor any province thereof, shall in future be described as a colony or something that means colony in any act of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
When the expression "Dominion of Canada" is used abroad in the United Kingdom what does it mean? It means to indicate the idea of subordination of these dominions to the United Kingdom. That is what it means, although it might be that the expression is used carelessly and merely because it has been common to use it since those days when it was proper; that is, when the word "dominion" is used in our own country it indicates the acceptance of constitutional subordination, unless the excuse is careless speech. The word "dominion" as applied to Canada, or in>
Dominion Elections Act any act of the Canadian parliament, has now lost its original meaning in practice-I say this with all respect to my colleagues of the Conservative party-as the supremacy [DOT]of the United Kingdom is now denied in Canadian affairs, both domestic and external, since Canada has now become a sovereign state and enjoys full international status on the basis of an equal nation within the commonwealth under the provisions of the Statute of Westminster dated December 1931.
The use of the word "dominion" as applied to Canada gives a false impression as to the present constitutional position of our country, as it denies recognition of the autonomous status of Canada and implies the idea of subordination to another country. It is further misleading as it suggests to the popular mind in our country and to the populations of other countries of the world that Canada has a status which is less than sovereign. Therefore, the word "dominion" should be eliminated from our vocabulary.
I should like to quote briefly from Time magazine of May 10, 1948, in order to prove the statement I have just made. It will be remembered that I introduced a bill to strike out the word "dominion" from all acts and regulations, and this is what this publication had to say:
C.C.F.'ers and many a Liberal cheered. From the Tories came a chorus of "No! No!" Arsenault's private bill had little chance of passage. Snapped the Ottawa Journal:	"... A very silly notion.
Words or the lack of them do not make our independence." But many loyal pro-empire Canadians agreed with Arsenault's purpose, if not his motive: they were tired of explaining to Americans that ^'dominion" does not imply "domination."


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would not re-enter this debate had it not been for some of the things which have been said, deliberately or otherwise, and I hope otherwise, to misrepresent the attitude of those who attach importance to the retention of the word "dominion". I think it is important to set forth clearly our attitude in this regard. I would without hesitation enter a plea, particularly to hon. members opposite and to those who report in the press what we say here, to understand and report accurately and exactly what we say and mean and what we have at the back of our minds in respect to this controversy.
I want to take up immediately what the hon. member for Bonaventure has just said as to the implication of the word "dominion". I would be very surprised if he does not know that it is a fact that the word "dominion", in the minds of those of us who say that it is important to keep it, has no connotation whatsoever of subordination or subjection to
(Mr. Arsenault.]

another country. I think the hon. member knows that as a fact. If he does not know it, I tell him now that it is a fact.
I want to read to the hon. member and to the committee some of the definitions to be found of the word "dominion". I think it is a pity that my good friend, the hon. member for Three Rivers, did not look at some of these other definitions when he was referring to one particular definition. I looked up the word in several dictionaries in the library. Funk and: Wagmalls New Standard Dictionary of the English language gives a number of definitions. This is a United States dictionary and therefore we can expect the definitions to be impartial. In the 1949 edition they give these definitions of the word "dominion":
1.	Sovereign or supreme authority; the power of ruling or governing; domination.


Bona Arsenault: Being governed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, we have a government in Canada. Does the hon. member for Bonaventure .say that we have no government in Canada? I could expeot him to be ashamed of the government we have but I would not have expected him to admit it.


Bona Arsenault: It is not a colonial government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course it is not a colonial government and we know that fact just as well as the hon. member. If the hon. member will just listen and try to rid his mind of the prejudices which are obviously there and which he is trying to implant in other minds he will perhaps appreciate even though he does not agree with what we have in mind and what we are trying to get at.


Bona Arsenault: Give us the French translation of the word "dominion".


Edmund Davie Fulton: The second and third definitions given are as follows:
2.	Law; the right of absolute possession and use.
3.	A country under a particular government.
And it gives as an example:
The Dominion of Canada since the union in July, 1867; the dominion of New Zealand since September 26, 1907.
Then the dictionary goes on to give a number of synonyms, and among other words mentions: "sovereignty", and "supremacy". Then it gives the antonyms or opposites, and I ask the hon. member to note these particularly. The opposites given are: "servitude", "subjection", "subjugation" and "submission".
Can anyone say in the light of those definitions that the word means anything but sovereignty and supremacy? That is what it means. Is that not then a suitable name for

our country? Funk and Wagnalls' dictionary then goes on to make reference to Dominion day, July 1, as being:
the anniversary of the formation of the Dominion of Canada: a Canadian holiday.
Then we find that this word was the subject of careful consideration at the imperial conference of 1926. That conference defined "the dominions" as-


Bona Arsenault: We were a dominion then.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I ask the hon. member to listen to this to see if he can find anything objectionable in this as a description of the position of Canada:
"The dominions" were defined as autonomous countries within the British empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or foreign affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown; and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.
Can hon. members opposite find anything objectionable in that description?


Bona Arsenault: Is the United Kingdom a dominion?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Certainly, the United Kingdom is a dominion of His Majesty. That can be proved conclusively-if we discuss this thing impartially and intelligently instead of with prejudice-it can be proved by simple reference, among other things, to the form of the third prayer used daily in the House of Commons of Canada, which opens:
Most Gracious God, we humbly beseech Thee, as for Great Britain, Ireland, and His Majesty's other dominions, so especially for Canada-
The French version reads:
Dieu plein de graces, nous vous implorons hum-blement en faveur de la Grande-Bretagne, de l'lr-lande et des autres possessions de Sa Majeste.
It seems to me that it is demonstrated conclusively that in both languages, in the prayers we use daily in the House of Commons, the simple meaning of the word "dominion" is, a dominion of His Majesty. We refer to "Great Britain and His Majesty's other dominions", showing that we clearly understand the United Kingdom to be, in that regard, in the same position as Canada, a dominion of His Majesty.
It is in that sense that the use of the word "dominion" becomes dear to us, and full of meaning. Because we see in it not in any sense a connotation of being subject or inferior to the United Kingdom, but simply a recognition of the fact that Canada, together with the other self-governing nations of the commonwealth, is a dominion of His Majesty, and therefore we see it as a symbol of the common allegiance we all owe to the crown.
Dominion Elections Act
I cannot for the life of me see how even my good friends opposite, who have carried on this sort of discussion in the past with heat and prejudice, could find anything objectionable in that use and interpretation of the word "dominion", which is borne out by the authorities, by the prayers we use in the House of Commons, by a dictionary definition in an American dictionary-and by the facts.
In so far as this particular bill is concerned, we can see the matter in its true light when we compare the old title in the French version of the bill with that in the English version. We say that there is no need to eliminate the word "dominion", because it does not in any sense mean inferiority or subjection to another country. As used so frequently in titles of bills, it serves no other purpose than a connotation first of continuing allegiance to the crown which unites us, and second as a convenient method of distinguishing dominion, or federal, from provincial matters. In this instance we can see clearly that it has no other implications; and I cannot see why my hon. friends opposite should insist that it is desirable to eliminate the word "dominion" from the English version, because if hon. members will look at the French version-the version in the other official language of the house-they will see that section 1, which we are now discussing, and which gives the present title of the act, reads as follows:
L'article premier de la loi des elections fede-rales,...
That is the French name of the bill.
Loi des elections federales
So that in this case the English word is translated by the word "federales"? Do my hon. friends find anything obnoxious in the word "federales"? Is not Canada a confederation? Why do my hon. friends insist so vehemently that the word "Dominion" should be eliminated from the act? In their own version it has nothing more than the connotation of federal as opposed to provincial. Why do they not accept our assurance that, to us, it means nothing more than first, a recognition of that allegiance to the crown which unites us, and which we all owe, and that when used in this connotation or in this type of legislation it has, in addition to that, only the meaning and connotation of "federal" as distinguished from "provincial"? It has no other meaning.
I have sent for some authorities in the library, but they have not arrived yet. Therefore I shall have to speak subject to correction. But I believe if one looks at the letters of Queen Victoria-
1940	HOUSE OF
Dominion Elections Act


An hon. Member:: Here they come.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: If you read them you would know more about them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Merry Christmas.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will not take up the time of the committee now to locate the exact reference because, as I have said, I have not had the time to check these authorities. Therefore I am speaking subject to correction, but I believe that if you consult "The Letters of Queen Victoria", second series, volume I, at or about page 394, you will find reference to a statement by Lord Carnarvon, that at the time the delegates from Canada were visiting the United Kingdom in connection with the formation of confederation they made it clear that the desire for the use of the word "dominion" was the unanimous expression of the desire of all the delegates from British North America. And their reason for desiring it was that they gave the same meaning to the word as we do, and as it is given in the form of the words used in the prayers of the House of Commons.
I would also like my hon. friends-and I say this without any heat, because I think we should review the matter impartially and dispassionately-I would ask my hon. friends, including the Prime Minister who, when he last spoke on the subject, sought to create the impression that those who want to keep the word "dominion" are in some sense desirous of going back to colonial implications and a colonial status-I ask my hon. friends who create that false impression, and who say that that connotation is attached to the word "dominion", just to be logical about this matter. I ask them to realize that it would be as logical for them to complain of the use of the word "Canada" as having colonial implications as it is for them to complain of the use of the word "dominion" as having colonial implications.
That implication and complaint I reject absolutely, in both cases. But I do point out that, if we are to consider this matter impartially and fairly, it must be kept in mind that "Canada" was the name of two of the provinces of this country when they actually were colonies, and were not self-governing, and that the word "dominion" did not come into use in connection with this country, as part of our name, until we had graduated from that colonial status, through the British North America Act of 1867, into the status of a self-governing nation, which was then called "the Dominion of Canada."
So if we are going to be logical about this matter we would have to admit that there is more reason, in logic, to attach a colonial


implication to the word "Canada" than there is to attach a colonial implication to the word "dominion". But there is no reason, in fact, sentiment or logic, to attach a colonial implication to either word.
Therefore I say that the two words should be carried forward together as descriptive of our status, of the grandeur of our land, of our affection for His Majesty and as expressing our loyalty to the crown which unites us, and will in the future as it has in the past, as one "Dominion of Canada."


Bona Arsenault: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kamloops has shown us-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. The hon. member for Greenwood has the floor.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say only a word. I am not going to deal further with the definition of the word "dominion" which I think has been dealt with adequately already. But I do wish to deal briefly with one point. I do wish to make this point clear, that there is not a single person in this party that anyone in this house can honestly suggest has one iota of the feeling of subservience to any country outside our own-not a shred of it.
My purpose is to show that, so far as our party is concerned, the whole history of the party makes it clear beyond peradventure, not to be guessed at, but to be taken by the action of those who are leaders of the party.
The hon. member for Three Rivers has already spoken of 1867, and the leaders of those days, Macdonald and Cartier. I come to the next great step, the greatest step in the establishment of our independence and our position as a sovereign state which I think any fair-minded man will agree took place in 1918 and 1919 when Sir Robert Borden- and it was not an easy task-insisted that we sign the treaty of Versailles in our own right.
I admit that until then there was a good deal of the feeling of colonialism toward us in Great Britain-and for all I know there may have been some here. But the first step was when Sir Robert Borden was placed in a position where he was able to say, "We sign this treaty on our own, as a sovereign state". That is what was done. No one can suggest that any other attitude has ever existed so far as this party is concerned. Let us take the next step. The next important step, and certainly very important, was when Mr. Meighen was prime minister and went to London where he resisted the attitude of the British government in the imperial conference of 1921. He was responsible for something that no doubt was of great

importance. He was responsible for the nonrenewal of the Anglo-Japanese agreement. Does that sound like subservience to the United Kingdom? Nothing of the sort. He took his position as the representative of a sovereign state.
It may be said-and I will come to it- that there were still some technical legalities which had to be cleared up and they were cleared up later. I will come to that in a minute. Borden and Meighen took that stand, and later on there was the Statute of Westminster. I do not take one iota of credit from the people who carried that through, Mr. King and the others; of course not. But that was in the main a tidying-up operation, a continuation of what had already been done. We need not dispute about that. Let us agree that both took part in it. I am not anxious to derogate from what Mr. King did.
Let me give you one other thing. How did our party win the election of 1930? It was on the cry, "Canada first". Some people may have forgotten that. I suppose it had been thought before that that perhaps Mr. Bennett was something of an imperialist and that he was going to defer to the United Kingdom and put us in a subordinate position. Does anyone suggest that Mr. Bennett put us in a subordinate position in 1932? Hon. members will recall perfectly well what happened then. If there was any subordination it was not on the part of Canada. It was the other people who were here. Those are the points I want to make, and whatever else is said I hope that as decent honest men trying to help this nation we will not misrepresent each other's feelings, and that merely because there are different definitions of the word "dominion" in the dictionaries no one will suggest that anyone on this side of the house has one trace in his makeup of a desire that this country should be anything other than what it is, an autonomous nation. As a matter of fact, as has been well pointed out, autonomy was won by French-Canadian, English-Canadian and other Canadian soldiers on the battlefields in the main, and I hope that nothing will be done here to disturb the unity that was their creation.


Mr. Hosking:: I had no intention of taking part in this debate but I think it is time that I expressed the feelings of some of the people of my riding and also my own feelings as their member. I can say without hesitation that nearly all the people in my riding have the same feeling with respect to the definition of the word "dominion" as was expressed by the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Greenwood. I do not think there are many in my riding who do not revere,
Dominion Elections Act love and cherish the name "Dominion of Canada". But I can also say that there are not many of them who do not think it more important to maintain good internal relations between citizens of the Dominion of Canada than they do of the one word "dominion". If we can bring a little closer together the peoples of two great nations living in this country, the French and the English, by giving up the word "dominion", then that should be done. It is on that premise that I propose to support the clause. This is true Liberal policy.


Mr. Sinnott:: There has been a little heat added to the argument by the hon. member for Greenwood. I see him walking out and I advise him that he had better stay. I should like to say a few words on Bill No. 41.


Mr. Gauthier (Sudbury):: Get going.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I was pleased to see the
member for Peel put forward suggestions as to changes in the bill, but what I want to bring to the attention of the committee is my own experience with certain suggestions made by the hon. member for Peel. I was also glad to see the terrific unanimity in the Conservative party with respect to the question of doing away with the word "dominion". The hon. member for Queens and the hon. member for Three Rivers are deskmates, and yet they have expressed opposite views. I wonder if that is true of all the Conservatives.


Howard Charles Green: You voted with us last night.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: That was on an altogether different matter.


James Arthur Ross: Three-way John.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: We have the hon. member for Three Rivers expressing one opinion and I am wondering if that is the view of his leader. Before this debate is concluded I hope his leader will express his views so that we may know whether they are the same throughout the whole dominion or whether there is one suggestion for the province of Quebec and another for the rest of Canada.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You are the next leader of the Liberal party.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I think there has been
altogether too much emphasis put on the word "dominion". When people sing "O Canada", the words "Dominion of Canada" are not in the song. It is "O Canada".


An hon. Member:: Oh dominion.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: So far as amending the
Dominion Elections Act is concerned, which will be called the Dominion Elections Act from now on-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
1942	HOUSE OF
Dominion Elections Act


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The Canada Elections Act- what we are interested in is to get as many people-


An hon. Member:: They could not get "dominion" out of it if they tried.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -out to vote as possible. In the municipality I represent I have had a little experience in the last thirty years, and the old bylaw provides that voting shall take place from eight o'clock in the morning until five at night. Last year we changed it so that voting now takes place from eight o'clock in the morning until seven o'clock at night with the result that at the last election many more voters turned out at the polls.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Hear, hear.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I have an amendment prepared by way of a suggestion to the minister for the purpose of changing the act, but since the next dominion election is many years away I will only make a suggestion to him. I suggest that-


An hon. Member:: He cannot read it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -we change the act-


Léoda Gauthier: And the 'bylaw.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I suggest that the bill be amended at some future time so far as paragraph (a) of subsection 5 of section 31 is concerned.


James Arthur Ross: Of the Dominion Elections Act.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: We are on clause 1.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: This is only a suggestion. With respect to subsection 5, I suggest that the polls shall be opened at the hour of eight o'clock in the forenoon and kept open until seven o'clock in the afternoon of the same day. I realize that the returning officers will have to sit there an hour longer and it will involve more expense, but at the same time I think there are many voters in the country who do not have the opportunity to vote. I am sure that if the time were extended one more hour many voters would have the opportunity of casting their ballot. I believe I am being conservative in my estimate when I say that half a million more votes would be cast.


Mr. Ferguson:: Here we find the members of the House of Commons discussing the elimination of this word "Dominion", and some of them seem desirous that it be eliminated from the background of Canadian history. All this is occurring at a time when there is a war in Korea, and when we may shortly be engaged in a life and death battle. It strikes me that there are a few members in the house who seem to feel that they must


take from Canadians something that is very dear to them because some person might think we are inferior. Some Canadians cherish their historical background, and it makes for better Canadians. I am sick and tired of hearing people referred to as English or French Canadians. I hear hon. members of the house ask questions concerning how many French Canadians are fighting here, or how many French Canadians are in the civil service. We should stop that and refer to Canadians as Canadians.
I speak from a background of ancestors who have lived in this country for 150 years. The only people I know in the British isles, Germany, France or India are the people I have met as a young man going about in this country. I am a Canadian. There were French people from that marvellous province of Quebec who proved that they were Canadians by fighting side by side with me. Tiheir forefathers fought on the St. Lawrence river with my greatgrandfather. They were Canadians. The fathers of confederation fought back and forth verbally and established the great Dominion of Canada. These history-making men, these nationmaking men, these far-sighted men decided to give this country a name which would serve to let the generations to come know that colonial Canada had been welded into an everlasting nation. They gave it the name of the Dominion of Canada. Some people would like to set aside the historical facts concerning how this Canada of ours was made a nation and created the Dominion of Canada. There seems to be a concerted attack on all the historical connections between this country and France as well as those between this country and Great Britain. Why? Will any man in this house stand on his feet and say that we have ever suffered because of any connections with Great Britain or the people of France? We grow strong by trials and tribulations. No matter what our forefathers may have done, I am sure that they did those things because they believed they were right. Out of their efforts, and through their trials, this nation known as Canada has been created. It is the envy of the world today because of the calibre of the people who are really Canadians.
What a man who has been elected to the House of Commons sees in trying to break down the historical foundations of Canada, which he knows a great number of people love, I do not understand. Perhaps people believe they can be elected by crying about something that is meaningless. Take away the word "dominion" because these people believe it is historically necessary, take away the little things they cherish, and what will we have? There are some people in this

country who would like to say the King of England is not the King of Canada. I go on record as saying he is the King of Canada. If we lose that connection with empire, we have lost what Germany is seeking today, a figurehead that everyone can respect; something for which France would be a better nation. Spain would be a greater nation if she had a common tie such as the one which binds the people of this country, and binds the people of the empire together. The people of the United States know that they would be a better nation if all the people could come together under a common symbol as we do.
I was in the United States, in the city of Philadelphia, when King George V was dying. Many of the people of that city came to me with their expressions of sympathy, and you would have thought that he was their king. There were announcements of sympathy on the radio, and the newspapers had a black border of mourning. In the great Wanamaker's department store every window on the main street displayed the sympathy of the people for the people of England, as a demonstration of the reverence in which the people of the United States held our king. The great trouble with France today, with its many parties in power, is that the people have nothing to bind them together. It will be a sorry day for Canada when we cannot live in unity with the other great nations of this empire. When our dearly beloved Princess visited this country, surely hon. members must have listened to the radio and heard the cheers that accompanied her along her route. These cheers accompanied our beloved Princess from coast to coast.
I plead with the government to give up their persistence or we shall have party politics. One half of the country will cheer one man and the other half will cheer another. There will be no binding power. I say, stop in your tracks, stop in your efforts, or you are headed for that. I say this as a Canadian. I am sick and tired of politicians trying to destroy something the other man loves, be its origin British, French, German or any other. If a Canadian likes it, if he feels he needs it and it is not going to hurt us materially, let us be big enough not to take away what he believes is dear to him and what we believe is dear to us. Stop this racial prejudice that exists in Canada amongst Canadians. Stop this trying to incite your constituents to point their finger from one end of Canada to the other or halfway across. Stop these references to French Canadians and English Canadians. Refer to Canadians. Bear
Dominion Elections Act in mind the thought that you should do everything in your power, irrespective of your origin, to maintain the great binding power of the English crown.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Withdrawal of writ.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have a
question to ask the minister. If this is not the right place to ask it, will he tell me where it should come? Reverting to a remark which was made this morning about compulsory voting, I want to ask him whether he knows how the device used in Australia has worked out. There I believe a fine was imposed for non-voting. Does the minister know whether that device was effective or whether there is any other device which has been effective, short of the Russian device?


Walter Edward Harris: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I could not give specific details. I could inquire from the chief electoral officer who, I know, has all of the information in this matter, and I could give it to my hon. friend later.


John George Diefenbaker: Mention was made just now by my hon. friend of the question of compulsory voting. There was also some mention of it earlier today. I do not think that the experience in other countries has been to the effect that compulsory voting has worked out well. Indeed if at this time a citizen has to be forced to exercise the basic right upon which freedom is based, there is something wrong with his conception of citizenship.
I thought I should like to point out one thing. On one occasion during the course of a meeting in my constituency, a question was raised with regard to compulsory voting. Among those present was an elderly gentleman who made his contribution. He said that over the years he had given consideration to means of assuring the preservation of democracy which, as he pointed out, could only be preserved through the general and intelligent use of the franchise. This gentleman said that he had read that in Australia and in New Zealand-particularly in Australia-the compulsory vote was used and that it had not worked out well, even though it had assured that some 91 per cent or 92 per cent of the people cast their votes. He said that he had given consideration to an alternative-and I pass it on to you, Mr. Chairman-which would do away with the necessity of compulsory voting but would assure that people would indeed exercise their franchise. This old homesteader's plan

Dominion Elections Act was that no one should have the right to go on the voters' list unless he registered and, at the same time, paid a fee of $2. At the time he came to vote, a part of the ballot would consist of a counterfoil which would entitle the person who had voted to the return of the $2. He said he believed that if his system were adopted there would be an almost 100 per cent vote in every election. I had never heard the suggestion before, Mr. Chairman, but it has merit.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 34 inclusive agreed to.
On section 35-Ordinary residence of member of Canadian forces.
Mr. Churchill:: I want some information with regard to section 35. There are three questions I should like to ask in order to get some explanation. Section 35 of the bill has to do with section 23 of the act, which mentions three different places of ordinary residence for a member of the regular forces. Then at line 27 it suggests a fourth method by which a man may designate his place of ordinary residence. Will the minister explain the meaning of that fourth method that is indicated here, commencing at line 27? It is not clear.


Walter Edward Harris: That method was introduced for the purpose of taking care of those persons-particularly those serving in the navy-who apparently got posted about a good deal more than most; and it is only, as the hon. member has pointed out, the final clause which would take care of any other case which was not included in the three options open to the serviceman in (a), (b) and (c).


Gordon Minto Churchill: No matter where a man be serving, surely he would be covered by (a), (b) or (c). It has not been clear to some of us, in discussing this matter, just why any further distinction would need to be made. The man has a next of kin or a dependent in (a); he could choose his permanent camp-I suppose that is what (b) stands for-if he is in the regular force; and he surely must have been living somewhere before enlistment. Why then the choice, as it must mean, of just any place that he may elect?


Walter Edward Harris: In the regular forces there are a great many who have been in the forces for a great many years, and the original residences whence they enlisted have no reality because these people may have been stationed, for example, in Ottawa for some years. The purpose of this provision


is that they may elect what would be a residence other than the residence of some years before.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My second question is this. In line 9 I note the words "every member of the regular forces". Then in line 26 I find the word "enrolment", and I find it again in line 38 and in line 43. Would it not be clearer to say in line 9; "every attested member of the regular forces"? And where the word "enrolment" is used elsewhere, would it not be better to say "prior to attestation"? A man might become enrolled in the service and not be sworn in and attested for some time. Normally, of course, it would occur within a few days, but there are occasions when a man is enrolled and is on ration strength and so on, but where his attestation or his swearing in would not necessarily occur until all the other forms have been complied with in the way of personnel selection, officer's investigation and his medical testing. I just ask the minister for his comment.


Walter Edward Harris: The committee gave some consideration to that and concluded that there would be no difference made to the person concerned by leaving it in this form. You will see that the section we are dealing with does in fact apply to the regular army rather than those who attest for a limited period.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My third question has to do with subsection 4, which is not very clear. It reads:
Except when he or she is also a member of the -active service forces of the Canadian forces, a member of the regular forces, may,-[DOT]
And so forth. Is or is not a member of the regular forces a member of the active service forces of the Canadian forces? What is the distinction?


Walter Edward Harris: The distinction is that there are some who were members of the regular forces in the first instance, and they are now members of the active service forces as well. The purpose of this is that of a -clean-up clause to cover all the other regulations, part of which is here; but part is not, because they are not complete. They are not all being changed, and this will take care of the very rare exception.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just one minor question. Does this mean then that a person who is in this excepted clause may change his place of ordinary residence at any time other than the month of December?


Walter Edward Harris: No; the one who
is in the excepted class cannot change it in December; it is just those who are in the regular army who may change it annually.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 36 agreed to.
On section 37-List of names, etc., of Canadian forces electors.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Just one question; commencing at line 35 it says that these lists of service people eligible to cast a vote shall be open to inspection by any officially nominated candidate or his accredited representative. An officially nominated candidate would not have access to these lists until nomination day, and that is just a short period prior to the actual election day. Is there any particular reason for placing that limitation on it? With regard to other electors, you have a chance to see their names certainly prior to nomination day. Why should it not be the same with regard to these service electors?


Walter Edward Harris: No one would be entitled to that information at all except as may be granted by the regulations. According to the section the regulations do not grant that privilege to any person other than the candidate officially nominated and his representative. I realize that the time factor may look rather short. In fact, it is not, because the voters' list is not made up until a matter of a few days before the actual nomination. In the camps and in the areas there will be ample time, having in mind the relatively small number of persons who will be voting, for the officially nominated candidate or his representative to get all the information he needs for the purpose of canvassing public opinion.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I assume then that the
various parties could name agents to look after the interests of all their candidates in the area.


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It would not require individual affidavits from the individual candidates to have access to this information?


Walter Edward Harris: That is a matter of choice. The candidate may do it on his own, or he may go through the party organization.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 38 to 48 inclusive agreed, to.
On section 49-Disposition of outer envelope when declaration incomplete.
Agar Rodney Adamson: One question. I have had some complaints as to the security and the secrecy of the ballot cast by active service electors, in that their names appear on the envelope in which the ballot is contained. Doubt has been expressed to me by several
Dominion Elections Act servicemen who voted in the last election as to the secrecy of the way in which they marked their ballots. I assume that this regulation covers that and merely adds to the secrecy. Will the minister explain?


Walter Edward Harris: That is quite right. The committee considered this and made every effort to improve the secrecy. In fact there is no violation of secrecy but, nevertheless, because the name of the service voter is put on the outer envelope, the service voter himself might get the impression there was not complete secrecy. In fact there is-


Agar Rodney Adamson: He did get that.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. In committee it was suggested by your humble servant that we might communicate with the Minister of National Defence to prepare one of these very informative little brochures that he gets out, telling the service voter what happens to his ballot and the outer-envelope after he hands it in for mailing and showing that there will be complete secrecy..


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 50 to 57 inclusive agreed; to.
On section 58-French version amended.
Walter Edward Harris: I gave an undertaking that we would not proceed with section 58, and with the permission of the committee I would ask that it be not carried.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Is it agreed?


Léon Balcer: I think it would be a very bad move if we did that. While I am on my feet I should like to pay a special tribute to the staff of this House of Commons that looks after the translating of our speeches in Hansard. They have recently been discussed in this house. I think this house should pay a special tribute to those translators who are doing a wonderful job and who are translating into beautiful French the speeches of the members. I know for a fact that hon. members are sometimes not as clear as the Hansard translators make them. I think also' that section 58 has been improved not only from the point of view of making it good French but also from the point of view of being understood by the public. I know for a fact that in the rural municipalities of Quebec in the municipal elections we call the returning officer le president d'eleotion.
(Translation):
In the rural municipalities of the province of Quebec, the "officier rapporteur" is the "president d'election" whereas the "sous-officier rapporteur" is the "secretaire d'election". Everybody understands and the use of these expressions prevents nobody from voting.
1946	HOUSE OF
Dominion Elections Act
(Text):
That is why I should like to insist that this particular amendment contained in section 58 be carried. I think it would improve the act, and would also make for a better understanding of the elections act by all our electors.


Mr. Cannon:: I wish first of all to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Three Rivers as to the excellent work being done by the translators of this house. They are doing very good work, and I certainly congratulate them upon it. But that is not what we have before us. We have an amendment suggested to the Dominion Elections Act, which will now be known as the Canada Elections Act. The purpose of the amendment, as we see on the page opposite, is to improve the French version. I was on the committee, as was the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska, and we represented to the committee that it was not an improvement because it was not a correct translation of the English.
The words "returning officer" have been translated as "officier rapporteur" for a hundred years, and they are recognized by everyone. If the section offered an improvement, I would be for it. I would favour it, if there was suggested a better translation of the words "returning officer" than is found in the French words "officier rapporteur". But that is not what is suggested. The suggestion is made that the words "returning officer" be translated as "directeur du scrutin", which means "director of voting". I say a director of voting and a returning officer are not one and the same thing. I shall not elaborate upon it, but if we use the expression "directeur du scrutin" we should' also change the English by using the words "director of voting". I submit that so long as the English text contains the words "returning officer" it is not an improvement to change "officier rapporteur" to "directeur du scrutin".


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I have just one further word. I join with the hon. member for Three Rivers and the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine in expressing appreciation of the translation of the French text of this bill. At the same time I take this opportunity to express regret concerning some observations which have been made with respect to the translators in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Walter Edward Harris: I must point out that there seems to be a division of opinion among those best qualified to pass judgment on this question. And, so there will be no delay caused by something which can be


dealt with at another time, I suggest that when Mr. Chairman puts the questions as to whether section 58 be carried the house join with me in rejecting the section, because we feel that at the moment it is not necessary to proceed with this section.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Do you propose to drop it altogether?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the remarks which have been made about the excellent work done by the translators in connection with their translations of Hansard and other documents that come before us, I wish to re-echo the sentiments of the minister and to express regret that those particular faithful servants have been subjected to some of the criticism voiced recently in the house.
Then, as to section 58, I wonder how many times this session something like this is going to happen. A few days ago an amendment to the address in reply was passed by a vote on the government side. Now we have an instance where a section in a bill moved by the government is to be deleted by action of the government, although the official opposition wants to support it. Apparently this section will be defeated by hon. members on the government side.
Section 58 negatived: Yeas, 19; nays, 53.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I declare section 58 lost.
On the title.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, at this point I should like to correct a reference I made earlier. I rise to a question of privilege in this connection. When I spoke earlier I pointed out that what I was saying was subject to correction when I received the information from the library. I have before me now the letters of Queen Victoria, second series, volume I, and the reference I wished to make is found at age 394. I would commend this to anyone who wishes to know more about it.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, without entering into the controversy which developed in the discussion which took place before, may I say that I have before me now the authority for which I was looking earlier, and I should like to read it into the record for the information of hon. members. It is a letter reporting to the Queen's secretary on discussions with the Canadian delegates regarding confederation. A moment ago I

indicated the exact reference at page 394, where it is found under the heading, "The Earl of Carnarvon to General Grey":
Dear General Grey,-The North American delegates are anxious that the United Provinces should be designated as the "Dominion of Canada."
I should point out that this is dated at the colonial office, February 7,	1867, and I
should add that the words "Dominion of Canada" are in quotation marks, with the word "dominion" italicized. It continues:
It is a new title; but intended on their part as a tribute to the monarchical principle which they earnestly desire to uphold. I see no objection to the proposal. It will give greater dignity to the commencement of this great scheme and consequently greater self-respect to those who take part in the administration of affairs there. I have spoken to Lord Derby on the subject. But it remains to ascertain whether, assuming the Queen to approve of the name of Canada, Her Majesty also approves of this proposed designation of the territory. May I ask ycu to take the Queen's pleasure upon this point and to let me know?
The point which emerges clearly, which we have been discussing, for which we have been contending, and which I repeat, is that in the use of the word "dominion" there is not the slightest connotation of subjection or subordination. It is now and always has been to us, and was intended at the inception of our nation, by those who first proposed the use of the term, as a tribute to the monarchical principle which they earnestly desired to uphold. And for the same reason and in the same spirit, in an earnest desire to uphold the monarchical principle in Canada, as loyal and affectionate subjects of His Majesty, we desire to retain that word "dominion".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 42, respecting the National Gallery of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On seclicn 1-Short title.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: There are one or two short references I should like to make to what the Massey report has to say on the national gallery. As I said the other day, in the midst of wars, rumours of wars and the other distractions we have to face, it is
National Gallery
hard to see that justice is done to other departments of life. Nevertheless I feel that we must try to escape that danger. I am sure we will all agree that a national art gallery is one of the things which should be regarded as .a public responsibility. The Massey report has this to say on page 77:
The national art gallery has been in temporary quarters for seventy years. It was founded in 1880 by the Marquess of Lome, who selected the pictures which were then lodged with the Department of Public Works.
And later on.
The gallery's collection of Canadian art is the most complete in existence, and the European collections, although not fully representative, are regarded as important by well-informed authorities in Canada and from abroad.
And then I quote from page 79 as follows:
The national gallery states that it can only with difficulty carry on even its present services unless certain immediate needs are met.
I direct those words to the attention of hon. members. The report continues:
First of all, it asks that its present anomalous position in relation to the Department of Public Works be clarified and that it be established as a separate branch of government under a board of trustees, with a status similar to that of the public archives.
I should like the minister to state whether he thinks the bill gives full effect to that. Then later on page 79:
The second pressing need, according to the brief, is a new building.
Without taking up more time of the committee I wanted to put those brief facts before hon. members, so that in looking over the bill they will have this very fragmentary picture of the recommendations made by the Massey commission.


Walter Edward Harris: Also without
going into detail as to the recommendations made by the commission, may I say that this bill is a direct result of thd report of that commission. It would not be fair to say that the national gallery will have a more active role now than it has had; because my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, has been as interested in it as any minister could be. Nevertheless it is felt that after thirty-eight years the gallery should have its corporate existence put on a more exact basis and that it should become part of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration so that ideas of art may be given prominence in the life of our country. This is not to suggest that any and all of the recommendations of the commission with regard to the gallery will be carried out. It is merely to say that as a matter of convenience and perhaps to give more weight to the future of the gallery it has been placed under the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The director will
1948

National Gallery
remain in the same relationship and will have the same access to the minister. I hope that what is to be done will meet with the approval of the committee.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It seems to me there is a slight danger of conflict in where the work of the national gallery ends and the work of the national museum begins. The national museum is under the direction of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, whereas the national gallery is to be under -the direction of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Most of the great museums in the world, such as those in Paris, Madrid and the great Metropolitan museum in New York, are also art galleries. They are more than mere picture galleries, because sculpture should play a great part in any artistic collection. In order to avoid this possible conflict I would hope that the jurisdiction of the museum and the gallery might be placed under one minister. There is one further comment I should like to make. The government in its wisdom provided a guarantee of $10,000 for the Vienna collections that were brought to Canada, but fortunately that was not needed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I felt somewhat sorry that the minister was not able to pay a greater compliment to the Minister of Public Works. I think I could have paid him a more generous compliment if I had had the opportunity. I noted carefully what the minister said.


Walter Edward Harris: I say it every day.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister said the Minister of Public Works has been as interested in it as any minister could be. I think that is a most equivocal compliment, but I shall not pursue the matter further. I presume the present minister is the one most interested, and that is the ground on which he is being given the job. May I ask the minister to what extent this bill gives effect to the request of the commission that the national gallery be established as a separate branch of the government under a board of trustees, with a status similar to that of the public archives?


Walter Edward Harris: The bill does not do that; that is an administrative position which can be worked out within the department. The director of the national gallery would have the same rank in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as other directors. As everyone knows, directors are usually at the heads of branches of departments.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As the Minister of National Revenue pointed out yesterday, I do not regard every word of the Massey report as being inspired, but I should like to know whether the minister considers that this is a substantial compliance with the requests made.


Walter Edward Harris: Very much so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Agent of His Majesty.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: This section
reads:
(1)	The board is for all its purposes an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada and its powers under this act may be exercised only as an agent of His Majesty.
(2)	The board may on behalf of His Majesty enter into contracts in the name of His Majesty or in the name of the board.
I call attention to the fact that subsection 4 of this section, which gives the power to sell, lease and so on, begins with the words "subject to the approval of the minister." No such words appear in subsection 2. Would not it be proper to have them in that subsection, which is rather more important than subsection 4 which has the qualification?


Walter Edward Harris: On the face of it that might appear to be so; but the authority of the board of trustees, which is a corporation, is neither extended nor abridged by subsection 2. By reason of its corporate existence it has power to enter into contracts. It is true these contracts necessarily cannot be carried out without a vote of parliament. The difference between subsections 2 and 4 is, as you will see, that in 4 the board has the power to dispose of property belonging to His Majesty. Subsection 2 is in all probability to be used to acquire rather than dispose of, and it was thought that where the board felt they might dispose of some property it would be proper for the minister to know about it before it was done. But in the contract to purchase the board of trustees are operating under a grant which is limited in amount, and their authority in so far as the government is concerned would only exist to the extent of that grant.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is certainly a very reasonable interpretation of what is intended. But surely under subsection 2 the minister might wake up to find that a contract had been made which exceeded their powers or their grant, and which might be embarrassing all round.
Actually is there any possible objection to putting those words in as a safeguard? As I understand what the minister has said, in

effect it is very definitely limited, but why not put that in? Is there any objection to it?


Walter Edward Harris: I think it is a matter of drafting in the Department of Justice. Crown corporations-and if you choose, this particular bill may be used as an example-are limited by the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act in that no contract is binding on His Majesty until certain procedure has been followed by the treasury board and the like. I have no objection to inserting it but I should like to warn that the insertion of these words too often in the act would make it appear that the minister had too much to do with the ordinary work of the board of trustees in what admittedly is a specialized field.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise merely for the purpose of seeking information. I think the point raised by the hon. member for Greenwood is very pertinent and deserves the serious consideration of the minister and the law officers. It would be a matter of interest if the minister could provide the committee with the opinion of the law officers regarding this particular section.


Walter Edward Harris: I have just
given it.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister gave a general summary. I intend to follow through and ask the minister what is the purpose of making the board an agent of His Majesty in the right of Canada. The explanatory note says that it is to conform to recent legislative practice. Would the minister outline what the nature of the legislative practice is in this regard and the purpose of having the wording as it is in this particular subsection?


Walter Edward Harris: I could do that by repeating what I have already said. When the bill was first sent to the Department of Justice it was only to include one small amendment, namely to increase the number of trustees in order to carry out that recommendation in the report of the Massey commission. It was considered in the Department of Justice that it would be better to pass a new bill bringing up to date the powers of the board to conform with the existing powers of the various corporate bodies that operate under the government. When we were discussing this matter I asked this specific question: If the board of trustees entered into an agreement to purchase a picture or work of art that was worth $10 million, what would the situation be? I was told the situation was that the contract would not be valid as against the crown without certain action being taken by the treasury board, and that therefore we need not worry about that, whether or not the board of trustees would ever do anything of that kind. I was told 94699-1241
National Gallery
that this section merely sets out the present position with respect to crown corporations, namely, that they have the power to make contracts within the limitations set out in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act.


John George Diefenbaker: That might be so if subsection 4 covered purchases. Subsection 4 reads as follows:
Subject to the approval of the minister, the board may sell, lease, exchange or otherwise dispose of any property vested in the board at the commencement of this act or subsequently acquired by the board.
If ministerial authority is required in the matter of purchases, for example, in the illustration given by the minister, or the authority of the treasury board, which after all in reality would amount to securing the approval of the minister, why is it that the word "purchase" is not included in subsection 4?


Walter Edward Harris: For the very purpose of precluding the minister having anything to do with the ordinary business of a corporation established by statute. The minister does not want to appear, nor in fact does this minister want to have anything to do with the question of the relative value of art, and the board of trustees have the power to acquire art under this section. It is not intended that the minister should intervene in the normal processes of choosing pictures or matters of that kind. On the other hand, once the property is acquired and becomes the property of His Majesty it is thought desirable that it should not be disposed of without some reference to the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister makes the statement that he inquired whether or not the board of the national gallery could purchase a picture costing $10 million, I think he said-


Walter Edward Harris: I said that.


John George Diefenbaker: -and he said the legal opinion was that it could not. Where is there any control over the authority of the board under this measure? The board is given absolute authority as an agent of His Majesty. Subsection 2 says that the board may on behalf of His Majesty enter into contracts in the name of His Majesty or in the name of the board. Where is the limitation under statute that would deny the wide authority granted under this section?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to add to that question before the minister

National Gallery
answers. As far as I can see there is nothing in subsection 2 to limit it to the acquisition of pictures. There is no reason why they should not go and buy a national gallery so far as, that is concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It might be a good idea.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: I quoted the opinion I obtained from the Department of Justice, that there is a limitation in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. If my hon. friend wants the precise citation I can-hot give it at the moment. If there is any feeling that this is a matter of importance and any doubt about the power of the board of trustees only extending to the objectives set out in the . bill, I will be glad to let this subsection stand. But I am told that it is in practically the same words as in the case of several other corporations established by statute.


John George Diefenbaker: Which, for instance?


Walter Edward Harris: I must say I cannot give names.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the minister, says, that in the statute there is a prohibition as to the powers of the trustees I can follow it; but if he says there is something in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, or whatever its new name is-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Financial Administration Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -that does not seem to me to help us much if these trustees go out and do something inconsistent with it. It reminds me of the old picture in
Punch of the deck steward who said to a passenger, "You cannot be sick in here," and he said, "Can't I?"


Walter Edward Harris: But if they made a contract outside their powers it would not affect the crown.


John George Diefenbaker: With respect to subsection 2, what is the reason the board has authority to enter into contracts either in the name of His Majesty or in the name of the board? What is the reason for that distinction?


Walter Edward Harris: The reason given for that is, as you will see in the following section, that they have the power to hire people temporarily. They would do that in the name of the board. On the other hand a larger and serious expenditure would in all probability be made in the name of His Majesty after, as we have indicated, reference to those who would be providing a substantial sum of money.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Could the trustees commission the creation of a work of art for a specific purpose? Supposing it was thought desirable to have a commemorative picture of some historical event, could they commission an artist to paint that picture?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, they could.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They would not have to call for fenders?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has been good enough to say he is prepared to allow subsection 2 to stand. We are possibly creating something which may go on for a long time, and it may become more important. I should like to be satisfied that there is a good reason for omitting those qualifying words. I believe I understand the distinction which the minister has made between 4 and 2, but I confess it is not wholly convincing.


Walter Edward Harris: Would it not be better if we passed the section? I shall discuss the matter with my officials and with my hon. friend. We shall not ask for third reading until tomorrow, and if there is any question in the mind of the hon. member at that time it can be discussed then.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There are few people who know less about the rules than I do, but it seems to me that once this has passed the minister will not want to make a change. It is sensible to let it stand. I doubt if I have ever seen a bill altered on third reading.


Walter Edward Harris: I think that what has happened in connectioni with the previous bill should be am indication that the minister would have no hesitation in amending a bill if he believes it should be amended. If the hon. member will permit it to rest there, I shall discuss it with the officials to see what they think. If an amendment is necessary it can be inserted at that time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If I understand the minister correctly, we are really going to deal with this as if it had been held over, and I am content.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Objects and powers.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I take it there is no plan under consideration at the moment which calls for an additional building?


Walter Edward Harris: There has been a good deal of discussion as to the location and nature of a building, and I believe that

discussion is continuing. I understand there have been sites considered, and I believe the site itself is a factor that has to be decided before any other steps can be taken, because the architectural nature of the building would depend to some extent at least on the site.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
' quite sure how far the minister has taken me. Does that mean the trustees are in a position to go ahead and make proposals for a building with a reasonable expectation that if a satisfactory proposal is made their recommendation will be accepted?


Walter Edward Harris: The precise situation is that already preliminary specifications have been drawn up by an architect, not as to the minimum that would be required in the building but including all those things which should go into a gallery building. The next step will be to determine a site, and then at that point to call for a competition for the design of the building incorporating the requirements which have already been agreed upon. At the moment I believe the position is that if the site is decided upon, then the recommendation of the board of trustees for the calling of a competition would be given serious consideration by the government.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would it be fair to say that this is recognized as a matter of importance which will be given consideration?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time; now?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I gave an undertaking and if I said later this day or next sitting, I think it would meet the exigencies of the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Third reading of the bill later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NORTH FRASER HARBOUR COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. 8, to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act-Mr. Chevrier

Mr. Dion in the chair.
North Fraser Harbour Commission
On section 1

Commissioners.
Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, when
this bill was last before the committee, on October 30, the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Peterborough West asked for some additional Information, bn the gross earnings of this harbour commission. I have that information for them. In 1950 the gross revenues were $50,158 and the gross, expenditures were $46,372,. I have some figures for 1951. To the end of November, of this year, that is for the eleven-month period, gross revenues totalled $60,357.35, and the total expenditure for the same period was $46,348. The 1951 expenditures include an unusual item in that during the current year a tugboat was purchased which cost $18,000.


Mr. Goode:: When the parliamentary
assistant introduced this bill he called it a simple bill. If this bill is simple, then the bill covering the St. Lawrence seaway authority, as well as several other bills that have been considered by this house, are also simple. The parliamentary assistant has told us that the annual expenditure of this North Fraser harbour commission amounts to between $50,000 and $60,000 a year. Yet there is a section in this bill asking that the commission be increased: to five members. This week the same department brought to this house the bill covering the St. Lawrence seaway authority. If I read that bill correctly the authority would consist of a president and two other members. So we are faced with the situation where the St. Lawrence seaway authority, which will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars per year, is composed of three members, yet we are asking this house to consider a bill that will increase the North Fraser harbour commission to five members, which body spends approximately $60,000 a year. We also agree that the national harbours board, with their tremendous responsibility in Canada, can get along very well at the present time with two members. Yet the North Fraser harbour commission must have five. The New Westminster harbour commission, which is directly east of the North Fraser, will have this year something like 400 ocean-going vessels under its control; yet over the years they have done very well with three members. For some reason unknown to me, however, someone wants to put five members on this commission.
To some extent I want to go into the matter of my interest in this bill; because it is most important that, when I oppose a bill presented by a minister of this government

North Fraser Harbour Commission whom I greatly respect, I should have definite and proper reasons for doing so. About two-thirds of the shore line of the north arm of the Fraser is also the shore line of the municipalities of Burnaby and Richmond which I have the honour to represent in this house. The other third, approximately, belongs to the city of Vancouver. The city of Vancouver and the two councils of Burnaby and Richmond have bitterly opposed the passing of the first section of this bill, and that is why I am speaking at this time. When my people are against something and it is fitting, according to my judgment, that I should speak against it, then I am at all times going to accept the opportunity of speaking against it, even though a minister of the government proposes it.
As it happens, the Richmond Times-a paper put out in the municipality of Richmond-in an editorial some months ago pointed out that the commission was changed about June, 1950. Up to that time, when the old commission sat there seemed to be not too much trouble in regard to whether there should be additional members of the commission. But for various reasons that I do not intend to go into now it was considered by the Department of Transport that this commission should be changed; and it was changed, and will give better administration to the north arm of the Fraser. At that time, before the change, I can tell the committee now it was not possible to take an audit of the books. In fact it was most difficult to get the auditors to express an opinion at all on the commission. When I was elected in June, 1949, this matter was brought to my attention and I, properly I think, brought it to the attention of the Minister of Transport. He immediately took action on it and two members of the commission were changed. Since that time a senior officer of the Department of Transport has visited the commission and I have a copy of the letter he has written to the commission praising them highly for the efficient work they are now doing.
This is the first time, I think-and I do not believe the parliamentary assistant will contradict this-that the commission for the north arm of the Fraser river has ever shown a reasonable operating profit. The reason they are showing an operating profit now is that every industry on the north arm is having to pay its share, whereas in bygone days -and not too far bygone-some people were paying their share and some were not. I think it is the industries that were not paying their toll which are putting up the fight for the two additional members on the commission.

The committee will remember that this bill was brought to the house at the last session. It has been told to me-and I have represented it to the proper authorities-that it was because of a certain meeting in Vancouver not long ago, in connection with the visit of the Minister of Transport to Vancouver, that representations were made by industry that they should be represented on the commission. It is because of that meeting, I think, that this bill is presented to the committee now.
I take exception to the first section of the bill; I take no exception to the second section. The reason I take exception to the first section is this. I told the committee quite clearly that there are authorities administering many hundreds of millions of dollars which are considered by the government able to operate quite effectively with a small number of commissioners. Yet I must consent, being a member of this committee, to a small part of the national life of Canada, the north arm of the Fraser, having five members on that commission-not I think by any wish of the Minister of Transport but because it is the wish of the industries on the river who wanit control of the North Fraser board1.
It will have to be proved by the parliamentary assistant before this committee finishes its deliberations-because I intend to get to my feet again-that the present commission is inefficient. I think I can prove in this committee that it is one of the outstanding federal bodies in British Columbia. If the parliamentary assistant wishes to argue that point I am prepared to prove that it is efficient.
Before I finish with what I am going to say -and I shall not be long because I seldom take too much of the time of this chamber-I want to go into the personnel of the commission as it is at present constituted. Mr. Tom Brooke, who has been an official on this part of the river for sixteen or seventeen years, in my opinion is an able administrator. I think his heart and- soul are in the business of the commission. There are times when I do not agree with him; nevertheless he has done a good job on the north arm. I think it is a good appointment of the Department of Transport and I support Mr. Brooke in what he has done. Mr. William Lees, who lives in the municipality of Burnaby, is a recognized property evaluator in that part of the country, a man who is most necessary to the commission because of the foreshore rights that are being rented, leased and sold over the years. Mr. R. M. Grauer for twenty years was the reeve of the municipality of Richmond which is greatly interested in this bill. I do not think

the parliamentary assistant or anyone else will say that any one of those three men has shown inefficiency in regard to his operations on the commission.
I say the commission is efficient, and I will take that view until the parliamentary assistant is able to prove me wrong. Then what is the reason for changing the commission? Does it not seem rather laughable to most of the members of this committee- when I tell you, as I have, that these other great authorities on waterways across the country can operate with two and three men -that a sixteen-mile stretch of water, that for the most part is not much more than half a mile wide at its widest part and a little less than that at its narrowest part before it gets to New Westminster, has to have five members?
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that something more than common sense is behind this bill. The people of Burnaby-Richmond, in the words of the reeves,-and the parliamentary assistant has those wires as well as I-bitterly oppose this section of the bill. The original North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act properly sets out that the interests of the municipalities are to be studied and protected as best that can be done by the federal government. In this case we are not protecting the municipalities. The city of Vancouver has also opposed this section of the bill.
There are 400,000 people or more represented by those three councils. Is this committee to study the interests of the 400,000 people, or is it to study the pressure that has been put on certain people by a few industries on the north arm of the Fraser who are interested only in their bank balances and their financial balances at the end of the year?
I said I intended to speak on this again before we finished it in the committee, but I do formally and on the record oppose the amendments to the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act as bitterly as I can, knowing that I am supported by every council on the lower mainland of British Columbia, and knowing that it is a wrong thing for this committee to impose upon my people two more members of the commission for which there is no need. Mr. Chairman, if this commission is inefficient this is not the way to make it efficient. If we have members on the commission who are not doing their job I would be the first in this house to rise in my place and recommend to the Minister of Transport that they be asked to resign, and we would replace them by men who could do the job. But I am convinced that this is a proper commission and that it can do
North Fraser Harbour Commission a good job, and I am waiting very anxiously and with some interest to hear the parliamentary assistant prove me wrong.


Howard Charles Green: Is the parliamentary assistant not going to answer?


William Moore Benidickson: I am waiting for the various comments.


Howard Charles Green: This is a rather unusual attitude for the parliamentary assistant to take. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has made out a very good prima facie case, and I think he is entitled to a reply from the parliamentary assistant. However, I should like to say a few words on section 1 and to suggest to the parliamentary assistant that he drop it.
No one is quarrelling with section 2 of the bill. Section 1 merely increases the number of harbour commissioners from three to five, and in addition-and this is a very important addition-it provides that four of these commissioners must be appointed by the government. The present set-up is that there are three commissioners, of whom one is appointed by the three municipalities of Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond. The other two are appointed by the government. If this section is passed the municipalities will still have only one member on the commission and the government appointees will number four instead of two.
It is very significant that these three municipal organizations have all opposed section 1. When the North Fraser harbour commission was established in 1913 it was provided that the profits made by the operations of the commission would belong to the municipalities. Incidentally, in 1913 Vancouver was not involved but there were two municipalities called South Vancouver and Point Grey which have since become part of the city of Vancouver. The three municipalities are the bodies that are interested in any profits made from the operations. Therefore the operations of this commission are of prime importance to them.
Furthermore there must be some neutral control of this harbour commission, and I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that the municipalities are the proper people to have such control. They are not subject to influence by different groups in the same way that other appointees would be. If there is any body in a position to appoint commissioners whose sole interest is the protection of the public, that body is these municipalities.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: The same argument would apply with reference to the government, would it not?


Howard Charles Green: The same argument does not apply with reference to the government,
1954	HOUSE OF
North Fraser Harbour Commission because these municipalities are on both sides of this particular waterway, and members of the respective, councils are right there on the spot where they can understand what is required. They have to satisfy the residents in the district. They are directly responsible to the people there.


George James McIlraith: Members of parliament are in the same situation.


Howard Charles Green: Whereas the government is back here, 3,000 miles away.


George James McIlraith: Members of parliament are responsible to their electors.


Howard Charles Green: I ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production not to try to be smart about this matter.


George James McIlraith: I am not trying to be smart; I am pointing out flaws in the argument.


Howard Charles Green: I am making a serious argument. If he does not agree, he can get up and make his own speech. He does not know anything about this, anyway.


George James McIlraith: I know a specious argument when I hear one, though.


Howard Charles Green: Well, you hear a lot from your side of the house, so you should. We have here public bodies who are responsible to the people of the district and who in addition will gain from the proper administration of this seaway. As I have intimated, they are unanimous in opposing this section. They do not want to have the number of commissioners increased from three to five. If the government is not satisfied with the present commissioners, then it is its responsibility to change them. That is not what is being done. Those two men, who presumably do not meet with the favour of the government, are being left on the commission, and two other men are to be added. On the face of it that shows there is something not right with this proposal.
Another fact which is of great importance is that it would be unfair and unwise to place the control of this waterway in the hands of the people who have foreshore rights to acquire, who may want to get rights to ereot docks and piers, who may want rights for booming grounds. There are millions of feet of saw logs stored in the North Fraser and there are very valuable rights to be acquired by the lumber people and other industries that use the waterway or that have operations on the North Fraser. I do not believe it is sound to turn over control of the waterway to representatives of the people who are doing their business on the waterway, and who stand to profit from being able to get benefits which might not come to them
fMr. Green.]

if it were under the control of the municipalities, or of an impartial body, or of a power which had absolutely no interests at stake.
It should be a cardinal principle in setting up these commissions that power ought not to be given to the people who are going to be doing business with them. Control should be kept in independent hands, and today that is the position. This commission is under the control of independent people. Someone does not like it and wants to have a change made. Representations were made a year ago showing that there is an attempt to get at least a strong voice in the operations of the commission. For many years we had a harbour board in Vancouver, the best harbour in Canada, and one which does a tremendous business. We had only three commissioners for that harbour, and they were not appointed on the recommendation of the people who were doing business with the harbour board.
I believe the same plan should be followed in connection with the North Fraser harbour commission. In reality I think this is a Liberal party matter. This trouble arises, and the bill becomes a necessity, because of trouble in the Liberal party. I have here a dispatch from the Vancouver News-Herald, reporting an interview with the Minister of Fisheries upon his return recently from Japan. The article states:
Mr. Mayhew says he favours the three-man harbour commission if a certain one of the present three members will resign, and if Mr. Goode will live up to his promise to obtain that resignation.
Meanwhile Mr. Mayhew said the government is going ahead with the bill for a five-man commission. But anybody who is appointed will represent all the people, not the tow-boat or sawmill operators.
That report may or may not be correct, but-


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I say part of that report is utterly wrong, and I shall take occasion later on to say where it is wrong.


Howard Charles Green: This is a quarrel in the Liberal party which should not have to be settled on the floor of the House of Commons. It should not have to be settled by increasing the expense to the extent of appointing two extra commissioners. It should not have to be settled by giving the municipalities concerned only a one-fifth voice instead of a one-third voice, as they have at the present time, in the operations of the harbour commission.
By section 20 of the incorporating act this harbour commission is given power to regulate and control navigation and all works and operations within the harbour, to appoint constables and so on. Also it is given power to make bylaws for the government of all

parties using the harbour, and of all vessels coming into or using the same, and by such bylaws to impose tolls to be paid upon such vessels and upon goods landed from or shipped on board the same, as they think fit, according to the use which may be made of such harbour and works.
The commission is given control over shipping, and it has had one great difficulty, which I submit I am in order in discussing on this section, because it concerns the whole set-up of the commission. That difficulty is that there is an old bridge right across the waterway-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: -which was constructed at the turn of the century-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: -and which interferes with all this shipping.


William Moore Benidickson: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. The bridge to which the hon. member refers surely has nothing to do with this bill, or with the Department of Transport.


Howard Charles Green: I submit it does have a connection with the bill, because control of shipping is in the hands of this harbour commission; and shipping is being impeded because of the type of bridge across this waterway.
For example, I have here a brief filed by the B.C. tow-boat owners association covering obstructions and hazards to navigation in this waterway in the vicinity of the Marpole bridge. I shall not read it at length, but I would point out-


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, when this bill first came up the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra discussed the Marpole bridge at some length and, against my wishes, drew me into that discussion. He admitted at that time that we were both out of order.


Howard Charles Green: I did no such thing.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member will agree now that he knows he is out of order in referring to the Marpole bridge, which has existed for fifty or sixty years over the north arm of the Fraser river. This bill has no connection with the Marpole bridge. It is a subject matter foreign to the increase in the number of commissioners. I suggest the hon. member should not be allowed to discuss that subject. When the estimates come up, in whatever department the hon. member thinks is responsible, I suggest he should take a day and discuss the matter.
North Fraser Harbour Commission


Stanley Howard Knowles: Give him a day and he will take a week.


Alphonse Fournier: But right now I suggest the hon. member is out of order. He understands that.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I would refer the committee to standing order 58 (2) which says that speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. It seems to me that what the hon. member is saying is not strictly relevant.


Howard Charles Green: My submission is that the government is now taking the responsibility for changing the set-up of the commission, one of the main functions of which is to control shipping on that waterway. I submit further that we are entitled to a statement from one of the ministers in regard to the Marpole bridge.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. The principle of the bill is an amendment, not the act itself.


Howard Charles Green: I submit the amendment opens up the subject of the operations of the commission.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I think not.


Howard Charles Green: It brings about a change in the set-up, and I submit it entitles me to raise this question.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I am sorry, but I cannot permit the discussion.


Howard Charles Green: I am very sorry, too, Mr. Chairman. I only hope that you will not be held up for an hour or two some day when you are coming from the Vancouver airport because the Marpole bridge is open and a tug is going through.
I would urge again upon the parliamentary assistant that no attempt be made to alter this commission, as suggested in the bill. Leave the membership at three. If that is done the municipalities cannot complain. Then if the government is dissatisfied with its own two appointees-and, mind you, these two men were appointed by this very government-let it take the responsibility for removing those men and appointing others.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words in connection with this bill. When the bill was in committee a month and a half ago we asked the parliamentary assistant for some information but he did not seem to have it; and the Minister of Public Works moved that the committee rise and report progress. We have a rather peculiar situation here. This bill appeared on the order paper in the name of the Minister
1956

North Fraser Harbour Commission of Transport, being one of several bills introduced at about the same time by the minister. When the other bills were dealt with the minister was here to pilot them through the house in his usual capable manner, but he seems to find it convenient to be absent when this bill is before the house.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not think the hon. gentleman is fair. The Minister of Transport is out of town attending an official function.


Angus MacInnis: Far be it from me to say anything that would reflect in any way upon the Minister of Transport. If there has been even a suggestion of that in what I have said, I willingly withdraw it. But I do point out that he was not here when this bill came up before and is not here today, while he was here when all the other bills introduced over his name were debated.
I suggest that the government take note of what the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond said this afternoon. I think he advanced an argument that cannot be met when he pointed out that only a few days ago we set up the St. Lawrence seaway authority which will have authority to expend hundreds of millions of dollars, and it was deemed by the government sufficient to have only three men constitute that authority and deal with a matter of that magnitude, while here we are to have a board of five to administer a small section of the Fraser river and handle expenditures of less than $100,000 a year. Surely there is no one in this house, no matter how naive he may be-I am not suggesting that members are naive-who cannot see something fishy in connection with the North Fraser harbour board.
I have in my hand a copy of the Richmond-Marpole Times, a weekly paper published in the area served by the North Fraser harbour board. The editorial in this issue is very much opposed to what is being attempted here, that is to increase the board from three to five members. It points out, as has been pointed out already by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Bumaby-Richmond, that the municipalities concerned not only are not asking for this but are definitely opposed to it. The editorial reads:
The industrial forces behind the move to change the North Fraser harbour commission from three members to five have claimed that such reorganization is necessary in the interests of efficiency.
It indicates the organizations which are behind the move to increase the membership of the board as follows:
B.C. Lumber Manufacturers' Association
B.C. Towboat Owners Association
Salmon Canners Operating Committee

The editorial goes on to point out that the new commission is certainly not inefficient when the present revenues are compared with those obtained under the old commission. The total revenue for 18 months under the old commission amounted to $37,938.72 as compared with $84,001.89 for 16 months under the new commission. It would appear that there could not be inefficiency there. If an attempt is made to force this through the house we shall have to oppose it because a case cannot be made out for appointing five commissioners to handle a revenue of $50,000 or $100,000 a year. There is no reason in the world why that should be done except to serve the interests of people who want to get control of the board. We might as well be straight on that and act accordingly. I suggest to the government that they withdraw the bill and not perpetrate this sort of thing on the people of the North Fraser river.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: As the hon. member for Vancouver East has said, I think there is something fishy in this bill. I believe the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond deserves considerable credit for having the courage to get up and oppose the government in the way he did. There should be more members of parliament with such courage rather than simply being tin soldiers who get up and speak or pound their desks and at times act against their own way of thinking.
It has not been proved to me that more members are needed on this board. I should like the minister or the parliamentary assistant to tell me why two extra members are being put on the board and what salary they will be getting. It seems to me that probably there are some political heelers who have their hands on the doorknob of the government asking for jobs.
Somebody has to take care of them. If the minister would answer these questions I would be more happy about the situation. After all, those who have spoken must know something about the situation or they would not speak in the manner they have, especially when it is against the wishes of the municipalities on both sides of the river. I think there is something fishy about the whole deal.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I do not intend to delay the house long in rising to speak in support of the bill. I should like to point out, however, that while a three-man commission is probably satisfactory as a harbour board lor Vancouver, and probably three men are sufficient on the larger project on the St. Lawrence river, I do not think a three-man commission would be satisfactory at the present time in this situation.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Why?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I will tell you why. In the first place the government has recognized two of the municipalities in the past. All three men on the board at the present time live in either Burnaby or Richmond. Vancouver's representative, while living in another municipality, has large holdings adjacent to the bridge. That does not mean to say I think that man would not be satisfactory, but the principle of giving representation to municipalities that do not contribute anything toward the support of the waterway has been recognized. Any revenue derived is divided with the municipalities. Some of the revenue goes to the provincial government, but all expenditures on the north arm of the Fraser come from the funds of the federal government. I think the very fact that there would be five men on the commission would make the situation more secure. If you want to change the present membership of the board representatives of the lumber industry, the fishing industry or any other industry could be appointed. There would be nothing to hinder the appointment of representatives of the lumber, fishing or tugboat industries, and they would have complete control of it.
With a five-man commission, and four of them appointed by the federal government, there is very little chance of any one industry or person imposing his will on the other four people on the commission. That is one reason I am supporting the bill. At one time I thought three members would be sufficient, but with only three members on the board there was no way to provide representation for all the municipalities affected. It might have been preferable to do what is being done with respect to the St. Lawrence waterways. The different municipalities and cities along the St. Lawrence river are not being brought into the picture and asked to take a part. The dominion government is going to appoint engineers who will be able to deal with the size, depth and width of the canal and how it is going to be operated. Nobody else is going to be allowed to have any say about it because they are not paying for it.
If we were to do the same thing here it might be the best way; but these same municipalities would be the very ones to object to taking that kind of stand. Therefore in order to protect the Fraser river from becoming the preserve of any special group on the river we are far better to have five commissioners rather than three, particularly when those three come from outside the area where most of the money is being
Foreign Exchange Control spent. After all, the revenue of the commission comes from money paid by people who-live along the river. It is not from the municipalities. It is revenue collected from the' people along the river. Therefore I think they have the right to some say, but they have no right to dominate the commission and impose their preferences. Rather than there being something fishy about the matter, it would be far more liable to be fishy with'-only three men on the commission rather than five. I support the bill because I think it is the right thing to do.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If I could have the indulgence of the house, I have an important announcement I should like to make, and I should like to move that the committee rise, report pro-' gress and ask leave to sit later. The statement I have to make is fairly short, and I would ask that at this stage we revert to motions to enable me to make it.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL


Agar Rodney Adamson: Before the minister speaks, will there be an opportunity to discuss the motion he is about to make?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Foreign Exchange Control welcome developments have naturally caused me, as the responsible minister, to give earnest consideration to the question whether the time was approaching when I could recommend to the government that exchange control be done away with. In considering this question, it has fortunately not been necessary for me to make any forecasts regarding the tranquillity or roughness of the waters which lie ahead; my task has been the more limited one of trying to decide whether there is sufficient likelihood that we shall wish to make use of foreign exchange restrictions to deal with whatever problems do in fact arise in the future to justify the continued retention of the powers contained in the Foreign Exchange Control Act and the administrative apparatus necessary to carry out its provisions.
The conclusion I have come to is that we would be better advised not to rely on exchange restrictions, but rather on the general handling of our domestic economic situation to keep us in reasonable balance With the outside world and to maintain the Canadian dollar over the years at an appropriate relationship with foreign currencies. This view has been shared by my colleagues, and the government has today amended the foreign exchange control regulations so as to exempt all classes of transaction covered therein from permit requirements. I shall lay on the table of the house a copy of the order in council by which this has been done. Its general effect is that foreign exchange control has been abolished in Canada.
It is the present intention of the government to introduce at the next session of parliament if the legislative program permits, and at all events before the present act expires, a measure repealing the Foreign Exchange Control Act and substituting therefor a new exchange fund act drafted along the same general lines as those parts of the Foreign Exchange Control Act which have to do with the operation of the exchange fund. Meanwhile the exchange fund, which holds the official reserves of gold and foreign currencies, continues in being and in operation under the Foreign Exchange Control Act and is available to contribute to orderly conditions and as a factor of stability in the exchange market.
Foreign exchange control was one of the basic, instruments for effective utilization of our resources for the conduct of the war. During that period and during the period of post-war readjustment the circumstances and problems which arose often placed a heavy burden upon the administrative staff. On this


occasion I wish to express, on behalf of the government, appreciation of the efficient and devoted services which the staff has always given in the fulfilment of its duties. I wish also to express appreciation of the co-operation we received from the agents of the board, business organizations and the public generally. I wish now, Mr. Speaker, to table these orders.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The
minister will not be surprised if for once we are able to congratulate him. It is perhaps one occasion upon which one would like to spin out one's congratulations, and even make certain annotations on them. I believe I shall content myself with saying that we are very glad the minister has taken this action. We think we may have contributed something to it; and if we did, we are very glad of that, too.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should
like to associate myself with those few words of congratulation to the minister upon the action he has taken. I have been pressing for this for several years. There is just one further step his department should take, and that is the establishment of a free gold bullion market here in Canada. This would completely free our currency from any control, and make it the world's most desirable money. I hope to see this in the comparatively near future.



NORTH FRASER HARBOUR COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 8, to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act-Mr. Chevrier-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Commissioners.
Tom Goode: I am sorry that I have to oppose my own minister on this bill. I do so with respect, and I believe it is an indication of the strength of this party, if nothing else, when a member can get up in this house and disagree with the minister. I cannot follow his line of argument that there should be some representative of industry on this commission. Perhaps I am somewhat amateurish in this business, but I should like to know of any major board where such a condition obtains. I know many of my constituents have questioned me whether industry should be represented on the commission, and they have asked me the same question: Where is there a major board upon which industry is represented? I am sure this must be the one case where the commission has been increased from three men to five.


William Moore Benidickson: I thought the Minister of Fisheries had effectively answered the criticism of this bill. There are several features, however, particularly those which refer to the department upon which I think I should properly give the house some explanation. The hon. member for Vancouver East suggested that something more than the usual procedural delays accounted for the fact that this bill had not come before the committee earlier. I want to assure him that had nothing to do with the wishes of our department. At the beginning of this session this particular bill, as well as another harbour bill, were assigned to me by the Minister of Transport as those which he hoped I would guide through the house. It is recognized by all hon. members that the minister has had probably as great a responsibility in piloting legislation through this house as anyone on the front bench. It was always considered that this bill had less importance when compared with other items on the order paper. On the other hand it was realized that, since it was coming close to Christmas and the interest in the bill was chiefly on the part of members from the far west, the measure should be proceeded with even though there are other items on the order paper of greater importance. I have been here night after night waiting for this item to be called, and ready to go ahead if the procedure permitted.
Something has been said about the size of this commission. There are a number of harbour commissions composed of three people, but there are others that have five. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond said that I should establish the inefficiency of the present commission. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is the farthest thing from my thought. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that if the government has not confidence in its two nominees on this commission, it has the responsibility to replace them. The government has the authority to replace them, but that is not the issue. I do not for a moment propose to establish any lack of confidence in the men. While I agree with hon. members who have said that three of the municipalities concerned have urged that the commission be not increased, two of those municipalities have been persuaded through attending a joint meeting of the users of the harbour that there was some lack of confidence in the case of one municipality in two commisioners, and in the case of another municipality in one commissioner.
The Minister of Fisheries has suggested that by broadening this board it will rest better with all those who are users of this harbour. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond asked if there were any harbour
North Fraser Harbour Commission commissions that had direct representation of industry. I do not think there is any intention of giving any particular industry, as such, the right to nominate a direct representative on this commission. On the other hand, the board of trade in the city of Toronto nominates one of the five members of that harbour commission. I am sure that, just like any member of this house, any person who has had business experience and who is placed on this commission will feel that he is a public servant. He would disregard his personal interests, and I am sure that would be the case even if the commissioner happened to have experience in the various industries that were the chief users of this harbour.
There was a suggestion that in comparing the revenues for the present year with those of 1949 one could make some assessment of the work of the present commission. I say that statement is neither to be challenged nor defended. It is a matter of fact that in the intervening year harbour rates were substantially increased, so that is not a yardstick that could guide the house. I might point out also that in the neighbouring harbour of New Westminster the government has the authority to appoint all the commissioners. It is established by what the Minister of Fisheries has said that additional investments in this harbour were made, not by the municipalities concerned but by the federal government. I might just put the figures on record which indicate that in the last fiscal year the federal government, in addition to the moneys expended by the harbour commission, spent $298,000 on this harbour for wharf construction and dredging. In the previous year the federal investment in this harbour, quite apart from the expenditure of the commission, was $358,696. We do feel that two more commissioners should be appointed since the city of Vancouver, one of the largest municipalities concerned, has not actually a representative on this commission. That might come about through this amendment.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the clause carry?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I should like to have my question answered.


William Moore Benidickson: I think the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) asked a question with respect to salaries.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: How much money is
involved?


William Moore Benidickson: It will be noted from the amendment that it is now proposed that the governor in council will have some control over the amount of these salaries. The simple
1960	HOUSE OF COMMONS
North Fraser Harbour Commission
increase in the number of commissioners does not, of necessity, mean that the total remuneration will be increased.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Fisheries has stated that, with only two government appointees on this commission, the situation would probably be more fishy than with four, using the word "fishy" in the slang sense in which it was used by one or two other members of the committee. That is not a particularly good recommendation for the government appointees. If he feels that way about the two present commissioners, surely something should be done about it.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Pardon me. I must not let that statement go unchallenged. I did not say that. The hon. member was the one who brought up the remark about lack of confidence. I did not say anything at all about lack of confidence in these men. The hon. member is the one who said there was something fishy about wanting five. Surely there is less chance for fishy dealing with five than with only three.


Howard Charles Green: That is what the minister said, that it would be less "fishy" if there were five rather than three.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I think it would be; that there would be more chance of its being efficient.


Howard Charles Green: Both he and the parliamentary assistant have now stated that they have every confidence in the present commission. The minister has gone on to explain that he is going to have these two additional men appointed to represent the industries doing business in the harbour.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Pardon me. Do not put words into my mouth. I did not say I was going to have anybody appointed. I never at any time said I was going to appoint anybody to represent any industry. I am a manufacturer, but I am not in this House of Commons representing the manufacturers. I am here representing all of the people of the city of Victoria; and in my present position as minister I am representing all the people of Canada in the thing I speak of, not the manufacturers or anybody else. If there happens to be on this commission a man who is in the tugboat business, or a man who is in the sawmill business or one in any other business, he is representing all of Canada and not representing that business.


Howard Charles Green: Then the parliamentary assistant and the minister said the municipalities had only one representative; they hinted that that was hardly fair, and might be one reason the government should be allowed to appoint two additional commissioners. If they really mean that, they could easily bring
[Mr. Benidickson.l
about that result by amending section 1 to provide that the municipalities shall appoint three commissioners of the five. Then there would be a representative from each of the municipalities and the whole argument would be settled. I would remind the Minister of Fisheries that, with regard to that point, the resolution of the city council of Vancouver reads as follows:
Resolved that council is of the opinion if the act is to be amended to enlarge the commission from three to five members which is contrary to council's opinion on the matter concurrence can only be given if three are to be appointed by the municipal councils concerned or their nominees after consultation with industry and that the other two are appointed by the government from industries operating on the river.
If the minister wants to have the municipalities given fair representation on this commission, will he agree to a further amendment of this section to provide that there shall be one commissioner appointed by each of the municipalities?


William Moore Benidickson: The answer is no for the reason I gave, namely that quite apart from the expenditures of the commission itself, the federal government are making substantial investments in that harbour, which makes it possible. I think the same people in a municipal organization are a part of the representative area of Canada which has this substantial vested interest.


Angus MacInnis: A moment ago the Minister of Fisheries said those who were appointed as commissioners, whoever they were, would represent the people as a whole; but I noticed that the first person he mentioned who might be appointed was a person from the tugboat owners' association. Does that mean an appointee has already been chosen from the tugboat owners' association? As possible commissioners he mentioned persons from the three organizations that we claim are behind these amendments, namely the tugboat owners' association, the operating canners and the sawmill operators. Are there any others outside of those who might be appointed commissioners? How did it happen that the minister just mentioned, first of all, the tugboat owners' association? That is what the people are concerned about. They are concerned that a representative of one of these interests will be appointed as commissioners, or two may be appointed; and they are just afraid that they will run the harbour board for their own benefit.


Mr. Gibson:: Let us get someone who is on relief.


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friend knows that he is on the outside fringe. There is no

North Fraser Harbour Commission
reason why a fringe person would not be just as satisfactory to them on the harbour board as my hon. friend is to them here.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Robert Wellington Mayhew: the third, reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.


Mr. Low:: Put the question, Mr. Speaker. Call for the yeas and nays.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried,-


Alphonse Fournier: On division.


Solon Earl Low: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house wish me to call for the yeas and nays?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of third reading of this bill will please say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having ri-sen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Cleaver:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


William Joseph Browne: I was paired with the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Pouliot:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Had I voted, I would have voted against. I think if my pair were here he would have voted with me.
Bill read the third time and passed.

Civil Service Act CIVIL SERVICE ACT



AMENDMENT RESPECTING TENURE OF OFFICE AND SALARIES OF COMMISSIONERS

Alphonse Fournier: the second reading of Bill No. 43, to amend the Civil Service Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, on division?


Some hon. Members:: Just a moment.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take only a few moments to reiterate a suggestion I made last year when the estimates were under consideration. Since that time I have secured figures from the department with reference to the number of employees in the civil service who come under the regulations of the civil service commission. I find that as of May 31, 1951, there were 8,580 women with permanent status and 19,236 with temporary status. In other words at that time there were 27,816 women under the civil service commission.
I do not wish to take up the time of the house except to say that at the moment there are three commissioners, one of whom has had his time extended, and who will be due for retirement within a couple of years. When this vacancy occurs I would ask the government to give serious consideration to the appointment of a woman member of that commission, due to the large number of women who come under the control of the civil service commission, and because of the representation they deserve on it.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1>-Tenure of office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask a question on this section. I do not register any particular objection to section 1; it is section 2 to which I object. That is the reason I shouted "on division" so loudly a moment ago.
In connection with section 1, is it not a bit unusual to place in a statute the name of the minister on whose recommendation an order in council is to be passed? This section has to do with extending the tenure of office of civil service commissioners and, beginning at line 20, it reads:
The governor In council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, may extend the term of office of a commissioner-
And so on. When statutes specify what is to be done by order in council, is it not

customary merely to say that such and such can be done by the governor in council? Why pinpoint it to the Prime Minister?


Alphonse Fournier: The only answer I could make is that the branch is under one minister who generally makes the recommendations. But, as the committee is aware, this is the most independent body we have in the employ of the country. While they have representation in the house in the person of the Secretary of State, the recommendations for the appointment of these commissioners are made by the head of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has referred to the point that was in my mind. I have not the Civil Service Act before me, to ascertain whether there is in it a section saying whom the word "minister" means, but I would assume that for the purposes of the administration of the Civil Service Act "minister" would mean the Secretary of State. At least he is the minister responsible to parliament. It occurred to me that if anyone were making recommendations to the governor in council with respect to the civil service commission it would be the Secretary of State, and that such action would follow automatically. I appreciate the minister's statement that he has no answer other than the one he has given. However it struck me as not quite proper to have it put in this way.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, I believe the civil service commission should be an independent body. It should be hired by parliament and, if necessary, its time extended by parliament. In my view the present commission is efficient. It has a big and an important job to do; but I have reason to know that the civil service commission is more or less tied by the cabinet at the present time. This bill will tie its hands to an even greater extent. It will not be the independent body that it should be. The Civil Service Act gives the minister power to overrule a decision of the civil service commission for cause. I have had occasion to inquire about this, and I could not find out just what the cause was other than that political pressure had been brought to bear by someone in my riding upon the minister or his staff, and the decision of the civil service commission was overruled. I am quite definite about that. If there is to be any change in the Civil Service Act, that one section should be taken out. We are either going to have a body that is independent, or one that can have its decisions changed by the minister for cause; and when that happens no one can find out just what the cause really is.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Salaries.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear cries of "carried"
from the ether side, but hon. members know that we on this side are strongly opposed to section 2. I see no reason why the setting of the salaries of the civil service commissioners should be taken out of the statute and given to the cabinet. As the minister knows, we have made this view crystal clear on other occasions, and there is no point in taking up time just now unless by doing so we can persuade the government to change its mind.
I believe this is a retrograde step and one which the government should not ask parliament to take. I suggest that if it is possible for the government to do this with respect to the civil service commissioners, it will be possible for them to come along next year or the year after with a similar bill with respect to the salary of the Auditor General or the salary of the chief electoral officer. I serve notice now that if this precedent is followed with respect to other officers in the same category we will fight it even more lengthily and even more strenuously than we have fought this bill.
We feel that the point just made by the Minister of Public Works is one that should be underlined, that this body should be completely independent. I do not see how they can have the same independence they now have when instead of their salaries being fixed by a statute of parliament they are to be fixed by one group, namely the government. We have not had any satisfactory explanation as to why this change is being made. I presume an increase in the salaries of the civil service commissioners is in prospect, otherwise we would not have this change at this time. If an increase in salaries is in prospect, I think the government should come out in the open and do it by amending the statute. As has been pointed out by the Auditor General, the statute needs to be amended because for several years the civil service commissioners have been getting their salaries in part by virtue of the statute and in part by virtue of an item in the estimates.
Surely the thing to do was to put whatever salary was regarded as right and proper in the statute rather than doing it in this way. As I said the other day, the issue that concerns us is not the amount of the salary. If there is a need to increase these salaries, well and good; but let us have a case made out for that need. Let that case be made out on the floor of parliament rather than within the four walls of a cabinet meeting, to be followed by a decision by
Civil Service Act
order in council. I suggest most strongly that this section should be deleted.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to
add just a word to what I said before. I submit that no adequate reason has been given for this change, in fact nothing that could be called a reason has been given.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No reason at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think that can, be said, nio reason at all. I can see no justification, for this. It seems to me that these commissioners ought to be left with the utmost independence. How do we seek to make independent those whom we most of all wish to be independent, namely our judges? Do we allow the government to fix their salaries? No; we fix them here.


William Joseph Browne: Why is not
the statute being amended in such a way as to bring the salaries paid to these commissioners up to date. For example, it could be provided that there shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada to the chairman a salary of $12,000, and to each of the other commissioners a salary of $10,000, which salaries they are receiving at the present time. Will the minister please explain why he has not amended the statute in that way instead of asking that this power be given to the governor in council?


Alphonse Fournier: Those who have just spoken on this section have suggested that they have received no explanation, but I would point out that when we were discussing the resolution on December 12 I gave all the reasons we had, as reported on pages 1842, 1843 and 1844 of Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alphonse Fournier: They do not seem to be convincing. I hope hon. gentlemen do not want me to repeat those reasons because I have stated them twice already.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Give us a real reason.


Alphonse Fournier: That is a matter of opinion. I could repeat the speech I made the other night but, unlike so many others who do it, I am not in the habit of doing that.


Mr. Noseworthy:: I want to protest against this section. I am confident that hon. members of this house must realize that this section vitiates the basic principle upon which the civil service commission was set up. It was set up originally to remove the civil service from government patronage. As long as the cabinet has the authority to fix the salaries of the civil service commissioners they hold the whip hand over the civil service commissioners, which brings the whole civil

Civil Service Act
service back under political patronage. Just what salaries has the government in mind to pay these civil service commissioners? Is it something they are afraid to announce to the house? If not, then there is no justification for not leaving it as it was, subject to statutory regulation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have been reading the reasons the minister gave the other night, and on looking at page 1842 of Hansard I find that they begin very well indeed. The minister said:
I believe that on December 4 I certainly made a blunder-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not only on December 4.


Alphonse Fournier: Just continue; the hon. member must be fair.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was going to read on.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there a period there?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, there is no period. There is more to come, and I quote:
I believe that on December 4 I certainly made a blunder by informing the house of the contents of the bill.


Alphonse Fournier: It was out of order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister continued:
That is due to my inexperience, but I thought that by giving details I would get the resolution through.
The minister went on to say that he had lost that illusion; then he proceeded to give some reasons and he continued:
Perhaps my reasons do not appeal to the hon. gentleman, but I know they appeal even to the members of the civil service commission.
That seems to be a good observation; I think that is probably quite true. Then the minister went on to say that the commissioners would not be affected in their sense of fairness by increases or decreases in salaries. Nobody has suggested that they would. The minister continued:
We wish to have the power to extend the tenure of the chairman and commissioners.
That is no reason for this section. Perhaps the minister can give other reasons that I have not been able to find in what he said before. Up to the present they do not seem to me very convincing. I hope he may still let the daylight in and not make another blunder by having this section passed.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What are the qualifications for appointment as commissioner?


An hon. Member:: A good Liberal.


An hon. Member:: A good Grit.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: If we knew what qualifications were necessary many in this house

might be making application. I should like to know what the qualifications are. Does he have to be a retired judge, a sitting judge who wants to get a better position, a lawyer, or what?


Alphonse Fournier: In my opinion the first qualification is a spirit of independence.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: You are taking that away from them now.


Alphonse Fournier: No. The hon. member for Greenwood said he agreed with me that an increase or decrease in salary would not affect the fairness or competence of the commissioners. I have always thought that the first qualification required in a commissioner, and especially in the chairman of the commission, is that he would be independent even of the speeches we make in the house. The commissioners just follow the law, apply the merit system which is the basis of our Civil Service Act, and fulfil their duties to the best of their abilities.	[DOT]


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The question is, who is going to apply it?


Alphonse Fournier: I suppose they must have some education in order to be appointed. I believe they would need judgment. They would need to know something of human nature, and in the exercise of their semijudicial duties they should be above pressure. They should be above personal sentiment and render justice to every candidate with ambitions to become a servant of the people.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What degrees do they require from a recognized university? In nearly every decent job advertised now by the commission the qualifications contain the provision that the applicant must have a certificate from some recognized university.


Alphonse Fournier: 
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: No; you will appoint them if they have no education, as long as they have common sense.


Alphonse Fournier: I can say one thing. I hold the three commissioners of the civil service commission in very high esteem. I think everyone will agree they are well qualified to fulfil their duties. If there is anything defective in the act, that may be corrected; but with respect to the present commissioners I bow to their fairness, good judgment and the way they have handled a very difficult situation in the last ten years.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They will not be there for all time.


Alphonse Fournier: With the increase in the activities of the government they have had a very heavy load. In answer to the hon. member for York South, I do not think the government has in mind destroying or vitiating the Civil Service Act. The other evening I gave the reasons we were presenting this measure, and I do not see why people object so much. There are only two civil servants who are appointed by parliament and whose salaries are covered by statute, with the exception of the judges, as has been pointed out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the board of transport commissioners.


Alphonse Fournier: I am asking myself if parliament with all its duties, functions and obligations, would have the time to make all appointments to higher positions in the civil service, and to make a study of the salaries that should be paid to all these people. I can see the sessions going on and on if we undertake that task. I think the government has the responsibility for these appointments. If they are bad appointments we certainly will suffer. If we do not pay them a salary that compensates them for the work they do, we will still be blamed because that is one of the duties and obligations of the government, which are not exactly the same as those of a legislative body.


William Joseph Browne: Will the minister state what salary he intends to pay?


Alphonse Fournier: I avoided answering that question, but the moment the government decides to increase the salary we will be only too pleased to announce it to the hon. gentleman.


William Joseph Browne: But you will do that after the house closes and we will not know anything about it for another two or three months.


Alphonse Fournier: The way the hon. gentleman puts it he wants to fix the salary the government would pay by order in council, and I do not think that is the proper procedure.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister indicated a few minutes ago that the chief qualification of a civil service commissioner was his independence. Does the minister or the government consider that the application of this particular clause, whereby their salaries are contingent upon a decision by cabinet, renders the civil service commissioners more or less independent?


Alphonse Fournier: I say to the hon. gentleman that if a man reaches the stage in life where he is considered qualified to
Civil Service Act
occupy one of the highest positions we have to offer, that of chairman of the civil service commission-or of a commissioner-and is affected by a decision of the government to increase or decrease salary, I do not think he is fit for the position.


John George Diefenbaker: That is just one of the
arguments why we set the amount of judicial salaries and make it so that they are not subject to change in that way, in order to maintain the integrity of the bench and its freedom from any control whatsoever on the part of the executive for the time being. That is recognized. I am sure the minister does not require any proof in constitutional works, but that is one of the main reasons given why their salaries shall be fixed by parliament and shall not be subject to the intermittent wishes of the government in power.
I have listened to the explanations given by the minister, and the last one was interesting. It apparently was that this is one of the first steps along the way of reform in bringing parliament to the position where it will do its work more expeditiously. In other words the minister indicated that if the power to fix salaries were left with parliament as in the past it would result in the delaying of parliamentary business. That is hardly an argument at all. Surely the minister and the government must have something in mind with regard to this change because on the face of it this has all the appearances of striking at the integrity and independence of the civil service commission, and placing the commission in a position where it will be subservient to the government in power.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: When I referred to qualifications I had in mind qualifications for appointments to be made in the future. I have no objection to the qualifications of the present commissioners, and I do not want to be misunderstood in that regard. With respect to the question of the salaries of the commissioners, however, I take the same objection I did the other day when the salaries of certain court officials were being raised. I have pleaded on many occasions in the house for an increase in the amount paid to railway and other pensioners who are on a starvation allowance for the rest of their days. I could not get even a dollar for them, and I think the government is making a mistake in voting thousands of dollars to men who already have high salaries. They should give the money to those who need it at this time. They should pay it out of their wonderful $600 million surplus. These men should be given consideration as well as those in higher positions. The Minister of Transport and the

Civil Service Act
Minister of Public Works know there are men retired from departments and organizations under their jurisdiction who have to get along on $28 to $39 a month. They have to live on it. On the other hand these salaries amount to over $50 a day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I was glad the Minister of Public Works paid tribute as he did to the work of the present civil service commissioners. We all join with him in that tribute. We would like to make it clear that nothing we say in this debate either reflects on them in any way or raises any issue so far as the present incumbents are concerned. We are not even questioning the practice of the appointment of civil service commissioners being made by the government, any more than we question the practice of the government appointing the judges of this country.
But I want to say also, Mr. Chairman, that the issue in this debate as I see it is not the amount of the salaries that may be paid to the commissioners. My supposition is that after this bill has been passed and given royal assent, there will be increases for them. In view of the other increases being made, I do not doubt but what a case for such increases could be made. But that is not the issue. The issue is the way these salaries are determined. Should they continue to be determined as they have from the year one, by parliament through a proper statute, or should they be turned over to the cabinet for decision by the governor in council. The Minister of Public Works had a great deal to say about this in answer to our question. He has been drawn into the debate and drawn into making blunders, as he says. He has given what he said were his reasons. I have dealt only with what some of us on this side believe to be a cardinal principle, namely that the auditor general, the chief electoral officer, the board of transport commissioners, the judges, and the civil service commissioners should have their salaries fixed out in the open by parliament as a whole.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I just want to ask the minister a question or two. Will he apply this argument which he wants us to accept for the civil service commissioners to the judges? The minister shakes his head. Then all I can say is that he has said nothing to make me understand why he would not do it in that case if he would do it in this case.


William Joseph Browne: I notice that the salaries of the ministers are fixed by statute. Would the minister consider an
[Mr. McLure.)
alteration in the law so that ministers of the crown could have their salaries fixed by themselves?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Following up what the hon. member for Lake Centre said, there is no doubt that the fellow who signs the cheque always has something to say-


Alphonse Fournier: Parliament signs the cheques for the money.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Parliament signs the cheques authorized by the cabinet.


Alphonse Fournier: But the estimates are approved by parliament.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: If you will take section 38(c) out of the act-


Alphonse Fournier: We are not discussing that.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The way it is now it really puts a ball and chain on the civil service commission.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the section carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall I report the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Bill reported.

PROVISION FOR SHORT-TERM: CREDIT TO PRODUCERS


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a bill to make provision for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties, arising from inability to complete harvesting operations or to make delivery of grain, through bank loans guaranteed by the crown with limitations including a limitation to the effect that the liability of the crown to pay losses will not exceed $5 million; moneys payable under the act to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there will not be time between now and the period of recess to make my full statement. If it meets with the approval of the members I should like to call it 6.15 and make my statement afterwards.
At 6.15 p.m. the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by my own statement to the house on October 30, and again by the Prime Minister (Mr. DECEMBER 14, 1951
St. Laurent) on November 5, and in a further statement by myself on November 15, the government has under consideration the question of whether financial assistance to certain producers in the prairie provinces is necessary, and if so, the manner in which such assistance should be provided. I want to emphasize that in the government's consideration of this matter we have recognized a continuously changing position and a continuously narrowing need for temporary assistance.
It was considered by the government and it is considered throughout the prairie provinces that the major problem confronting western producers who have been unable to deliver significant quantities of grain in the present crop year will be met in the distribution of surpluses from the 1950-51 oats, barley and wheat pools. These payments will be completed within a few days and, as I have indicated to the house, have aggregated about $130 million. We must not underestimate the importance of these payments from the standpoint of improving the cash position of grain producers under the circumstances which have prevailed this fall.
The problem has also changed in that threshing has been proceeding in spite of adverse conditions, and the volume of unthreshed grain has been substantially reduced in the past four or five weeks, particularly in the province of Alberta. When I was in Alberta last week it was estimated that well over one-half the Alberta wheat crop had been threshed, and threshing was proceeding in many areas. In Saskatchewan, where threshing is still going on, 75 to 80 per cent of threshing is completed; and in Manitoba threshing is finished except for an area in the northwestern part of the province. In this respect, therefore, there has been some improvement, although many producers in Alberta and to a lesser extent in Saskatchewan have crops still in the fields.
The position has been changing in another respect. Up until October 25, producers in the prairie provinces had marketed 195 million bushels of grain. As at December 6 they had marketed 291 million bushels of grain, a very substantial increase in marketings over the past six weeks. These increased marketings have been made possible largely through shipments of grain out of country elevators. Up to October 25, shipments of grain out of country elevators had amounted to 150 million bushels. Up until December 6, shipments of grain from country elevators amounted to 241 million bushels. You can see, therefore, that in the last six weeks grain shipments out of country elevators amounted
Grain
to 91 million bushels, and these shipments mean more opportunity for producers to deliver grain.
Since mid-October it has been necessary for the railways to concentrate their shipping to some extent at least on stocks of wheat which were most readily available to the lakehead and to the Pacific coast. This was necessary in order to meet urgent export commitments entered into by the Canadian wheat board. On November 21 it was possible for the wheat board to amend its shipping instructions and give a high degree of preference to the shipment of grain from delivery points which had been congested for some time, and to the shipment of tough and damp grain which producers had not been able to deliver in volume to their country elevators. Under these shipping instructions I am quite sure the delivery opportunity of many producers in the west is improving and will continue to improve. When you look at these developments, I think members of the house will agree with me that the need for some plan of interim financing for grain producers has steadily decreased and, of course, will continue to decrease as threshing and shipping of grain proceeds.
While in the west I also had a viewpoint expressed to me by producers themselves that while they have had an unfortunate fall in so many respects, they are able to carry on without difficulty after having experienced a series of fairly good crops and good prices for grain and livestock and livestock products.
In spite of all I have said there are producers who, because of delayed uncompleted threshing, have been able to deliver little or no grain this year, and there are also some producers whose deliveries have been restricted by lack of available storage space in country elevators. Therefore the government feels that a restricted problem does exist, and has decided to make advances available to producers in these circumstances. These advances will be made through the chartered banks. In seeking the proper course of action, discussions were held with country elevator operators in the three prairie provinces. The elevator companies were most helpful in their consideration of the problem, but the government has decided that it would be more appropriate to use existing financial institutions whose business it is to lend money rather than to ask the elevator companies to assume the responsibility of lending money provided under a government guarantee.
Under the plan which the government is proposing the banks will operate under an arrangement similar to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. That is, they will make

Grain
loans on their own account to farmers, and the government will stand prepared to meet losses up to 25 per cent of the loans made. This guarantee is larger than under the Farm Improvement Loans Act because the risks are greater, and about the same as under the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act. The banks will be able to call upon the government to implement its guarantee on October 1, 1952, after there has been an opportunity for deliveries to be made from the 1952 crop as well as the current crop. The loans should, however, be fully repaid out of the proceeds of the 1951 crop.
Since the loans are intended only to provide some cash for a limited period to those farmers who have been unable to deliver any significant volume of grain, it is proposed that the limit shall be $1,000 to any one farmer. In making individual loans, the banks will take into consideration the quantity of unthreshed or threshed grain which producers will have for delivery when their threshing is completed or when elevator space is available. The banks will also take into consideration deliveries which producers have already made in determining the amount of individual loans. Within the maximum provided, the amount of money which will be loaned in each individual case will be determined by the banks on the basis of their experience and judgment, and of course the banks will bear in mind the considerable guarantee which is being provided by the government of Canada. It is the intent of the plan that these temporary loans will be repaid just as fast as producers can deliver their grain.
May I conclude this explanation by saying that these loans are not in any sense to be regarded as a form of relief. They are interim advances made available at commercial rates of interest to producers who have grain on their farms or who have crops which they have every reason to believe will be harvested in due course.
I hope and believe that the provisions of the bill that will be founded on this resolution will solve the financial difficulties of those producers who have been unable to harvest and market sufficient of their crop to provide for their interim living expenses. I am happy to say that the number of producers in that position is growing smaller each day, but there are still certain areas where the credit to be made available will relieve a situation that might otherwise result in considerable hardship during the coming winter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the minister respecting the advances to be made to
IMr. Howe.]
western farmers has been long anticipated and long delayed. While welcoming the general principle in connection with the basis upon which these advances are to be made, having regard to the situation on the prairies, I think the amount of the guarantee by the government, $5 million, is palpably and obviously inadequate to meet the situation that exists. The maximum of $1,000 would appear to be fair and proper. However, the total amount of $5 million to be guaranteed to the extent of 25 per cent will not, as I see it, meet the situation on the prairies.
The minister is in a better position than a member of parliament, without the statistical and other information available to him, to see what the situation is. The minister has said that approximately 80 per cent of the crops on the prairies have been threshed in the province of Saskatchewan. I think the situation generally is this. The total percentage of grain that has been threshed is approximately 72 per cent, and about 28 per cent still remains either standing or unthreshed, about 13 per cent in the swath and 15 per cent still standing.
The minister has indicated that conditions have improved, and that as the weeks have gone by the situation, to use his words as I took them down, has been continuously changing and the need has been narrowing. True enough, the payment on account of the 1950-51 pool has been helpful in relieving the situation in many parts of the western provinces. But one cannot expect that the threshing will continue at the rate it has been proceeding in recent weeks. If my figures be correct they mean that almost 30 per cent of the wheat in the province of Saskatchewan, and I think generally speaking on the prairies, is unthreshed.
The minister mentioned that there are areas in which the farmers have been able to market but a small part of their production, first because their threshing or harvesting is not done, and second because of the shortage of available storage. That is true. While this is a step in the general direction that we on this side of the house have been advocating for the last two or three months, it does not go far enough and does not meet the situation that exists. I can see no risk in connection with loans on wheat in storage on the farms. Wheat is wealth. It is good security. That security can be taken by the bank at any time once the loan is made. There is no risk in the guarantee by the government of loans against wheat that is in storage.
For the last several months Mr. Alvin Hamilton, the leader of the Progressive Conservative party in Saskatchewan, has been advocating something very similar to what is now adopted by the minister, with this

exn-ption: that the amount should be at least twice if not three times that now to be guaranteed by the government in order adequately to meet the challenge to the economic solidarity of the western provinces.
The minister has mentioned that promises have been made from time to time that the problem would be considered. This is not a problem that has originated in the last few weeks. It is due in large measure-that is, excepting for climatic conditions that have prevented the harvesting of the crop in many areas-to the failure of the wheat board to realize that with over 100 million bushels of damp wheat in storage on the prairies from the 1950-51 crop, when this fall's crop became marketable there would be no available facilities for storage. The responsibility cannot be placed on the shortage of box cars, nor on any other explanation that has been made. It is not because of a shortage of railway transportation. I make that statement because of a joint statement that was issued on the tie-up in the movement of the present record crop, issued about September 20 by Mr. George Mclvor, the chief commissioner of the wheat board, and Mr. R. W. Milner, the federal transport controller. In that statement the railways were not held responsible for the congestion. The railways were exonerated in these words:
Full use cannot be made of presently available transportation and lake tonnage.
Then it points out:
There is no lack of box cars.
The reason for the congestion is the large quantities of the 1950 frozen, low-grade wheat lying in the country elevators and in the terminal elevators at the head of the lakes, Montreal and Vancouver. Because of the unavailability of storage which should have been provided, farmers found themselves unable to market that which they had harvested, and climatic conditions accentuated the condition in that it prevented harvesting, threshing or combining in many areas on the prairies.
While a step has been made in the right direction, I feel that the amount of the guarantee holds out a greater hope than will be realized when the matter is actually applied and the loans given in accordance with the terms announced by the minister. I can see no reason why there should have been a restriction to $5 million; for, I repeat, I can see no risk so long as the advance-and I used the minister's word "advance"-is expressly made applicable to threshed and stored wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest to the hon. member that the full amount will not be used.
Grain


John George Diefenbaker: That is possible because, after all, the banks are the ones that will determine whether or not any advances are made to the farmers; and if the banks have not felt like making advances up to the present time against the security, the 25 per cent guarantee will not result in the acceleration of any desire on the part of the banks to make loans at the present time. What the minister says may be perfectly true; no doubt it is.
I now come to another matter with which I had hoped the minister would deal, although he has denied on more than one occasion that the government had any intention of making payment to the farmers for the storage of wheat on their farms. Since he made those statements he has visited the western provinces. He attended the farmers union convention in Saskatoon. According to the press, he met them in a most congenial manner, and in keeping with his best tradition when meeting farm delegations. The farmers ask that payments be made for the storage of wheat on the farms. There would be no cost to the Canadian people in accepting that idea. After all, if it were not for the fact that the storage facilities in both the line elevators and the elevators at the head of the lakes were congested by unmarketable tough or frozen wheat of the 1950 crop, most farmers who did their threshing or combining this fall would have hauled their wheat to market immediately. I repeat that it was not a shortage of box cars but the allocation of available cars that resulted in the wheat being piled up on the farms.
If the wheat had been stored in the elevators the price the farmer would ultimately receive would have been subject to the deduction of the monthly amount allowed for storage. If the farmer stored the wheat on his farm he should be paid what otherwise would have been paid to the elevator companies. I know the government is adamant in this regard, but there is a strong feeling everywhere on the prairies that even at this late date something should be done to provide payment to the farmers for the storage of wheat on the farms.
I now come to the third matter, and that is in connection with the farmer who has not been able to thresh his crop, whose crop today is either standing in the fields or lying on the ground in swaths. I am not suggesting and I have not at any time suggested that there should be loans made on crops under those conditions, for there would be a considerable risk.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yet we are doing it.

Grain


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the banks will make no advances against wheat lying on the ground, having regard to the probable toughness of that wheat next spring. I think in a case such as that there should be some provision whereby payments similar in nature to those under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act would be made available to farmers. I am sure of this, that if a farmer goes into the bank and says "I want to get an advance of up to $1,000 on 200 acres of wheat lying in swaths, and 100 acres that is standing unthreshed in the field," regardless of the 25 per cent guarantee on the part of the government that farmer will have made a fruitless visit to the bank, unless his credit is so high that the 25 per cent guarantee would not be necessary in any case. I am suggesting something in the nature of the payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Legislation analogous to that would cover the situation.
I am not going further into the question at this time. Generally speaking what has been done is a step in the right direction. However, I do not think it holds out much hope for the western farmer who finds himself in a predicament today, first of all because of government failure to realize in May, June and July the probability that our crop would be one of the greatest in all history. Having realized that, one would expect the government to have made provision for the removal of many millions of bushels of wheat glutting the elevators, making those elevators available to the farmer for his marketing.
The situation is serious. The minister has seen it at first hand. No one who has not seen it can realize what it is. I have spoken to one or two members from Ontario who in recent months have travelled to the west, and they tell me that if they had not seen what they did see they could not have realized just how serious the situation is. What is being done through the announcement of policy by the minister I am sure will cause no loss to the Canadian treasury. It could have been brought into effect-I say it should have been-weeks ago. No doubt there would have been earlier consideration, had the event that took place about one week ago been set a month earlier. A step is being made in the right direction. I believe in commending where commendation is due. In making this criticism, I couple with it commendation of the government for having made provision, even though it is too little, and much too late.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, in common with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who has just taken his seat, I agree that this is a step in the

right direction. As he has said, few people in eastern Canada realize the disappointment farmers in western Canada have faced in the last two years.
Last year we had one of the best crops we had ever grown, but we found in August that it had seriously deteriorated through frost. In fact the loss ran into millions of dollars. In the part of the country I represent many farmers did not realize anything from their crops. Large areas were completely frozen, and the crop had to be burned this spring.
This year our crop came through in most areas without serious damage from frost, though there were some isolated areas where the crops were frozen. But again we found we were unable to harvest this crop. In the northern part of the province, in the Carrot River valley, the northern part of the Meadow Lake country, and the Prince Albert country, we knew on November 15 there would be no more threshing. A large quantity of snow had fallen by that time, and it would have been most extraordinary indeed had we been able to thresh any of the crop that remained out. That was a large percentage of the crop. I believe I am speaking conservatively when I say that in that area only 40 per cent of the crop has been threshed, and 60 per cent is either lying in swaths under the snow or is still standing.
What will be realized from that, no one knows. Due to the fact that it was an extremely heavy crop, we do know that the chances of harvesting it in the spring will be that much less. The grain is lying on the ground so flat that, having regard to the state in which the snow will leave it in the spring, it is most doubtful whether it can be combined. As the minister has stated, it is true that the final payments by the wheat board for last year's crop will help a great deal in many areas, but there are many people who lost last year's crop and therefore have no payments coming from the wheat board.
In many areas in the northern parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta there are farmers on new land who have only from 20 to 100 acres under crop. The most they could receive from the payments on last year's wheat crop would be quite small.
I should like to say a word in commendation of the wheat board's method of handling grain. I think the wheat board did an excellent job in marketing the 1950 crop. I have heard it stated by many farmers in western Canada that if it had not been for the orderly marketing under the wheat board they would have received from 25 to 50 cents

less per bushel for their lower grades. I think we should commend the wheat board for the manner in which they marketed last year's crop.
These final payments are not going to take care of the small farmer in the northern part of the provinces, nor do I think this loan will take care of him. In many cases the small farmers are some distance from the towns, and they have not been in the habit of getting loans from the bank. They have never been in the position where they could go to the banks and obtain loans because of their small acreages. Under this guarantee they will be able to go to the bank manager for the first time, but my opinion is that their chances of getting anywhere near the maximum loan will be small indeed.
I am afraid that in many cases they will be unable to repay it. I think some provision should be made whereby a farmer who had a total crop loss would not be asked to repay this loan. In many cases up there the crops are going to be a total loss, and that will mean the loan will have to be carried over for another year. As I say, I think where the crop is a total loss some provision should be made that it will not be necessary to repay the loan from the 1952 crop.
I am not so much worried about the farmer who has three, four, five or six hundred acres under crop because in most cases he can take care of himself. He will have payments coming from last year's crop and will be able to carry through, perhaps with a small loan which he would be able to get under this legislation. But I am afraid that many of these smaller farmers are not going to benefit from this loan because, as I said, they have not been in the custom of dealing with banks. The bank managers do not know them and do not know whether their land is good or not. Naturally they will hesitate to make loans to those people. The minister did not state what the interest rate on the loan would be but I suppose-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The commercial rate.


Percy Ellis Wright: Five or six per cent when it is borrowed from the bank. Again I do not think that is sufficient, especially in the ease of the small farmer whose crop was a total loss last year. The minister has indicated that he does not think the full amount guaranteed will be used. I think that will depend entirely upon the policy of the banks. If they are fairly liberal in making these loans, it is quite possible that the full amount will be used.
Mention has been made of small loans under the Veterans Land Act being similar to these, but I do not think they are. This
Grain
is a different type of loan. Those other loans were not made to people who were suffering under the disabilities of the small farmers in the northern parts of the provinces. Not only should we have legislation on a more liberal basis; I think the government should have brought in legislation with regard to farm-stored grain. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) mentioned that, and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) brought in an amendment to the speech from the throne asking that there be an advance on farm-stored grain of up to 75 per cent of the initial payment. I believe if that type of legislation had been in effect we would have had a more orderly .marketing of our crop than we have at the present time.
It is true that for the last two years the wheat board have been anxious to get deliveries of grain to meet their commitments and the necessity for this type of legislation has not been so apparent. But if we had had good weather this fall and had been able to thresh our crops in a normal way, a large percentage of that crop would have had to remain on the farm or there would have been one of the worst gluts that has ever occurred as far as transportation is concerned. Everyone would have been trying to market his grain just as quickly as he could. Until we have some permanent arrangement for payments on farm-stored grain that condition will prevail in any normal year. I ask the minister to give serious consideration to devising some method of making payments on farm-stored grain.
With regard to this particular piece of legislation, as I said before we are glad to have it. It will help in some cases, but I do not think it is going to help a great many of the farmers with small acreages who have not been dealing with banks and who are not known to the bank managers. Those bank managers will hesitate to make loans to them. If there were some provision that in the case of a total crop loss the loan would be paid in full out of the $5 million guarantee, then I think the banks would be freer in making loans to the type of person whom I am sure both the minister and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) would like to see helped under this legislation. I ask them to give serious consideration to making some arrangement with the banks whereby those people who have a total crop loss will not have to repay their loans.


Robert Fair: Like the
hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) who have preceded me, I am glad the Minister of Trade and Commerce

Grain
(Mr. Howe) has introduced this resolution tonight. I am only sorry it was not done five or six weeks ago. Had that been the case I believe many farmers would be enjoying a much happier Christmas than they will be able to do under present circumstances.
Many people do not realize that in large areas in the prairie provinces this is the second year in succession when crops have been lost during the winter months. The minister has stated that conditions are changing continually, but I do not think they are improving very much in many sections of the country. I understand that some threshing has been carried out during recent weeks in the southern part of Alberta, but they have the Chinooks down there which are frozen up by the time they get to the northern part of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. As far as I know very little threshing has been done in my part of the country, and I am not as far north as many other farmers. The final payment on the 1950 crop has helped to a considerable extent, but here again I think many hon. members do not realize that the farmers were in debt and have been waiting for some little time to pay off their debts with the 1950 final payment. Therefore that money will not last long. It is all promised to merchants and others. Perhaps it will have to be used for paying back taxes. Therefore nothing will be left to take care of 1951 crop expenses. Many people also do not realize that the farmer's crop is his pay cheque for the whole year. By some method he has to finance the putting in and taking off of his crop and so on, and until he receives payment for his grain he is not in a very happy position.
I realize that shipments of several million bushels have been made recently, but so far as the farmers are concerned in most cases they received payment on that grain some time ago. That will not help them to a very great extent. The minister also stated that many farmers are able to carry on because they have had good crops and good prices. I think the minister knows a little better than to try to tell us that the farmers have had good prices in the past. Perhaps they are good when compared with the depression years of the thirties, but if the minister or anybody else will consider the cost of the things the farmer has to buy in order to produce then it should not be hard to understand that grain prices are away below what they should be.
With respect to loans, I feel that the banks are the proper agency to make them. It has been suggested by some that the Canadian

wheat board should advance loans to farmers. If that proposition had been put forward I would have likely been the first to say we should not do business that way. The business of the wheat board is selling grain, not carrying into effect emergency policies of the government or other matters of that kind. Concerning the amount of the loan, $1,000 to each farmer, I am not quite sure whether that will be sufficient in some cases. In most cases I believe it will be, but I think the bank managers, who are experts in their fields, should be given some leeway in order that they might extend a little more credit to a farmer who had a good crop but has not been able to harvest any of it.
In the past bank managers have been doing a good job so far as guessing what the farmer will do is concerned because they do not only take his assets into consideration. They also consider his record of past performance. If he has been doing his job and repaying his loans in the past then I think the government might allow a little leeway over and above the $1,000. Where a farmer's crops are under snow at the present time, in addition to having the expenses of that crop he will have to have enough money to buy seed for the 1952 crop. If I were sowing seed again on the land I do not think I would take a chance on grain that had been under the snow all winter. That means the farmer has to have the cash to buy his seed somewhere else.
I am also glad the minister made it plain that this is an interim advance and not a gift to the farmer, because many people are ready to jump at any excuse to pin something on the farmer when it comes to receiving money from the Dominion of Canada. If the farmers were given full credit I think it would be established that they are the ones who have been making gifts to the rest of Canada rather than accepting them in the past. I believe figures can be produced to demonstrate that fact. The farmers are honest. I believe their record is as good as that of any other occupational group. A return brought down recently having to do with farmers' income tax showed that in the years 1945 to 1950 inclusive only two prosecutions took place for evasion of income tax and just one conviction was secured. That indicates they are honest.
Some farmers will be unfortunate enough to lose their crops. Before they can be harvested in the spring they may be flooded out or destroyed by mice or other animals. In that case I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that P.F.A. or some such assistance be granted to them.

When the minister was in Calgary and Saskatoon recently he made two statements with which I cannot agree. One had to do with the recent $65 million gift to the farmers of the prairie provinces. The minister realizes quite well that if the farmers had been paid the class II price for their grain during the period covered by the $65 million they would have had another $367 million in addition to the $65 million. In the same period they also subsidized Canadian consumers by supplying wheat to the millers at a price below what they would have received for it as class II wheat, and another $137 million should be added for that.
I believe these things should be taken into consideration when dealing with the problems of the farmers. In Saskatoon the minister said he would refuse to change the domestic price. He may have also said that in Calgary, but I did not see that report. I think we should no longer ask the farmers to give one-third of the price of their wheat to the Canadian consumer. Absolutely no case can be put up to support such a policy. I hope the government will change it without delay, and give the farmers what they are entitled to for their grain. Everybody realizes that the cost of machinery, wages and everything else for which the farmer has to pay has increased by 200 to 300 per cent over the past years. If we had had the kind of policy we should have had most of our farmers would have had a little reserve set aside so that a crop failure in one year would not have put them in the circumstances in which they find themselves at the present time. I may have more to say on this matter when we get into committee.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to say that I think this is a step in the right direction, but like previous speakers I believe the provision is quite inadequate. Today I have been studying the report of the dominion bureau of statistics issued on December 13, 1951, dealing with the value of the wheat crop by provinces. Based on their figures the preliminary payment for wheat would indicate a value all told in the three prairie provinces of approximately $600 million. That is on the basis of the initial payment. As I understood the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), he said that about half the crop was still out in Alberta, 25 per cent in Saskatchewan and a very little in Manitoba. On the basis of these figures founded on the initial price this would mean that the value of the crop still unharvested is approximately $175 million.
Therefore hon. members will readily see that the guarantee of $5 million is less than
Grain
3	per cent of the value of the crop which farmers still have unharvested. It is very small. The minister said that prevailing commercial rates of interest would apply, and I presume that the rate of interest will be set out in the bill when we receive it. I would think it should be. I agree with previous speakers that there will be many small farmers, who really need assistance, who will find difficulty in obtaining a loan from the banks. The minister says he does not believe the $5 million will be taken up, and that might well be so. In my opinion many of the needy farmers will be unable to obtain assistance under this scheme. Officials of the minister's department and others claim that we are going to experience difficulty in transporting our grain because of our present method of harvesting. It is said that the situation in the last two years is not temporary, and that we shall have to revamp our whole system in taking care of future crops. If that be true, and I think it is, then the government should give serious thought to assisting the farmers in storing the grain on their own farms.
As I have pointed out in previous statements in this house, we have the experience of our neighbours to the south who receive loans on farm-stored grain. In fact the United States has already advised the farmers that the initial payment, based on 90 per cent of parity, will be $2.18; and this crop has not yet been seeded. For 1952 no quota is being placed on the acreage because the United States wants full production. The farmers are going to be guaranteed $2.18 a bushel on properly stored grain, plus monthly storage up until April. After that they can turn the crop over to the government or they can sell it at the prevailing market price and pay off the loan. The market price is very much higher than the guaranteed loan of $2.18 per bushel. As at present the federal treasury of the United States pays that difference to the farmers, and it is a very great difference. In fact the difference between what the United States farmer receives in North Portal as an initial price and what the Canadian farmer receives is $1.07 and a fraction per bushel. On December
4	the United States farmer would receive $2.30, on the street at North Portal for a certain grade of grain, while his Canadian neighbour would receive as an initial payment $1.23. That is a great difference.
Our good friends from Ontario receive considerably more than $2 per bushel for their wheat today because they do not sell through the wheat board. The market is higher than that. I feel that, because of the trend that has taken place in Canada over the past few

Grain
years, our government should give consideration to the United States system. It is true, as some people would argue, that under this storage system one farmer will simply be paying another for storage through our pooling system. But that is the case today, as the cost of storage paid to the elevators is pooled through the wheat board in many cases.
I think this should be given serious consideration. I know the minister and those people who have been out west will realize that the situation is very much better in Manitoba than in Saskatchewan or Alberta. They will realize how serious it is for these people who have their grain out under the snow. Our sympathies are with them, because they are going to experience considerable hardship. They have their year's expenses to meet. This year the cost of production has been higher than for any year in the history of this country. While we shall have statistics issued showing the great national income of the farmers this year, it should be pointed out that their cost of production has been considerably higher than in any previous year. The cost of farm implements has increased in 1951 by 14 per cent over 1950. In fact there has been an increase of 81 per cent above the level of 1939. The price of fuel oil is increasing, and farm wages are much higher than ever before in the history of this country. All of these factors must be taken into consideration.
I just wanted to make these few remarks at this time. I shall have a few questions to ask when we have the bill before us, but I do request the minister and his officials to give serious study to the possibility of introducing more comprehensive legislation that will assist in the marketing of next year's crop. The departmental officials claim that because of our system of handling grain we are going to have greater difficulties than we have experienced in the past, so thought should be given to that problem.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Along with other hon. members I want to say that I welcome the announcement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), concerning the steps the government is prepared to take to deal with the emergency situation in western Canada. As is well known, the problem has two parts. The first is the difficulty of marketing the grain the farmers were able to thresh, and the second is the difficulty the farmers had in threshing their grain. In some parts of the country large acreages are still lying under the snow. The box car situation has indeed been very difficult. At some points in western Canada,

as the minister stated tonight, very little grain has been moved. I do want to say that I am pleased that the government appointed a controller. Any shortage of box cars at any particular point which has been brought to Mr. Milner's attention has been dealt with in an expeditious manner. I believe the fact that we have a controller is of material help to western farmers.
So far as I am concerned, I am not in agreement that this was the best method of handling this difficult situation. It seems to. me that when any farmer goes to a bank manager to ask for credit, the bank manager must of necessity apply a means test to the farmer's application. In other words if the farmer can show the bank manager that he is a good credit risk, that he has cattle at home on the farm or that he has some grain which he has not been able to sell, the bank manager will likely grant his loan. If he is a small farmer who has been unable to harvest any of his crop, he is the type of farmer the bank manager is most likely to refuse. I believe the best method of handling this situation, which is an emergency situation, would have been to make advances through the elevator companies at the local points, with the government paying the interest and guaranteeing the wheat board against possible loss.
Every farmer in western Canada has to market his grain on his delivery quota book. I believe that farmers are basically honest, and when they have to market their grain on their own delivery quota book the elevator companies would be in the best position to collect the advance. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the premier of Saskatchewan, and I would even go so far as to say the municipal officials, the representatives of the federation of agriculture, together with the leader of the Liberal party, Mr. Walter Tucker, believed the government was going to handle this situation by advances made through the wheat board facilities. I have here a press report which appeared in the Leader-Post of Thursday, December 6, of a statement made by the premier of Saskatchewan to the Saskatchewan legislature. The report is as follows:
Every likelihood exists that an advance will be paid farmers for unharvested unthreshed grain on their farms, Premier T. C. Douglas told the legislature Wednesday.
Under such a system, Mr. Douglas said, a record would be kept at the elevator and the payment checked off when the grain was delivered.
A payment of this nature would be different from a loan, he said. It would be treated as an advance and there would be no interest.

The premier said Trade Minister C. D. Howe was expected to make a statement either when he was in the west on a current trip or when he returned to the east.
If an announcement was not made cn advance payments at the elevator for undelivered grain, he continued, then a move would be made toward a second proposal.
The second proposal the premier outlined was the proposal for loans to farmers guaranteed by the municipalities, the provincial government and the federal government. But the premier of Saskatchewan, because of the discussions he had with the Minister of Agriculture when the minister made his trip to Saskatchewan, was able to say in the Regina legislature that he felt, following those discussions, that the most likely way it would be done was by advances through the wheat board; and the premier of Saskatchewan supported that kind of policy. The press report goes on:
Opposition leader Walter Tucker said he agreed the advance payment proposal seemed to be the better of the alternatives.
It seemed, he said, to be a "very rational solution or partial solution." Many people would be preferring this to going to the banks and municipalities.
Mr. Tucker said he had made representations to federal authorities to have storage paid farmers who store their own grain at least this year and perhaps as a permanent policy. He had suggested some system of advance.
He believed some thought should be given to payment for farm storage.
I think, in this situation, the Minister of Agriculture knew the best type of policy to deal with the matter. I believe, from the report I have just read to the house, that an advance through the wheat board was the basis on which the discussion was held in Regina. I know, from the statement, that was the premier's impression, and that such a policy had the support of the leader of the opposition. In the resolution the government proposes to guarantee the banks against loss up to an aggregate of $5 million, by guaranteeing 25 per cent of the aggregate loans up to $20 million.
In my opinion, if one read this resolution without knowing the situation in western Canada one might have thought it to be a measure of assistance to the banks in western Canada rather than one of assistance to the farmers. The farmers are not going to get anything for nothing. They are going to have to pay the full commercial rate of interest. The banks are going to get a good return on their loans; and if they have any loss, they are going to have that loss paid by the federal government.
I believe there was a method by which the government could have provided some additional payments to farmers who have undelivered or unharvested grain, that would
Grain
not have cost the government of Canada a single dollar and still would have more than covered the interest rate that farmers will have to pay. I refey to the payment of farm storage. The elevator companies now receive farm storage from the Canadian wheat board. They are paid at the rate of one-thirtieth of a cent a bushel per day. The elevator companies are now paid .1 cent per bushel per month as a storage payment. That works out to 12 cents per bushel per year. If the average value of the grain on which they wei .. paid storage was $1.00 a bushel, that payment amounts to an interest rate of 24 per cent. If the value of the grain, shall we say, was $1.20 a bushel, then storage at the rate of 12 cents per bushel per year is equivalent to an interest rate of 20 per cent.
I think the farmer who is unable to deliver his grain or who is unable to harvest his grain is entitled to that storage payment. The wheat board made a storage payment some years ago; I believe it was about 1942, during the war, when there was a serious marketing difficulty. Administratively it was exceedingly simple for the wheat board to make that storage payment. All the wheat board had to do was periodically make a small advance in the initial payment for wheat, equivalent to the storage charge. If there had been in the initial price a gradual increase equivalent to the storage charge, the farmer who threshed his grain in the spring, and who had to go all fall and winter without a great deal of revenue, would have more revenue in the spring than he would have had in the fall, on the equivalent number of bushels, to an amount sufficient to cover any loans he might have had to make.
I am glad the government has had the wheat board send out the final payments on wheat, oats and barley. The fact that those final payments were made at an early date and that they were highly satisfactory, when one considers all the difficult circumstances under which the board had to operate, accounts in large measure, I think, for the favourable vote in Manitoba on the coarse, grains plebiscite.
I can remember that in the wheat board debate last year I moved an amendment asking the government to wind up the pools within sixty days of the end of the crop year. The minister at that time said the idea of having power to wind up the pool year in a short time was mainly to handle, as he called it, dribs and drabs that had not been sold; in other words, a few million bushels of grain. I am glad the minister has had wound up the oat, barley and wheat pools a short time after the end of the crop year. I think

Grain
that is the way it should be handled. I hope that next year, the year after, and the following year the government will consider as a precedent the good job the minister has done in that respect this fall, and will continue to pay out whatever balance there is in the various pools at the end of the crop year, and to make those payments before the beginning of the next calendar year. In his statement tonight the minister said the total of these final payments amounted to some $130 million. He added to that, as far as farm income is concerned, the returns farmers received from having marketed in the present crop year, that is up until December 6, some 291 million bushels of grain. The farmers of western Canada have $130 million as the final payment from the various pools. They have the proceeds of 291 million bushels of grain. I would take it that from all these sources western farmers have received this fall something in the neighbourhood of $400 million.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct; yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister says that is a correct statement. I now come to this, Mr. Speaker. The most the banks can lend under this measure is $20 million, which is just 5 per cent of the money the farmers have already received. It would seem to me that if half the crop in Alberta, or nearly half, is still unthreshed, if 20 or 25 per cent of the crop is still unharvested in Saskatchewan, loans amounting to 5 per cent of the total amount of money the farmers have already received will be insufficient to assist in an adequate way those farmers who have been unable to harvest and market their crops.
Most of the suggestions that were made in western Canada in the last two months as to an adequate advance on unthreshed grain amounted to a figure of $10 an acre. If that was a reasonable figure-and it seemed reasonable to me-the $1,000 limit means the farmer who is able to satisfy the bank manager that he is a good risk will be able to get an advance equal to $10 an acre on a hundred acres of crop. The basis on which the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is operated is more generous than that, in that payments are made on one-half the cultivated land up to 400 acres, or payments are made on up to 200 acres of crop. I believe the $1,000 loan the farmer can obtain under this provision is too little for the majority of those farmers who have been unable to harvest their crops. I do not make that statement because I want to criticize this measure. I do so because I do not think $1,000 goes very far on a farm. A thousand dollars does not go very far for anyone, even if their only expense is that of 
living and providing for their families. The farmer has additional expenses. Most farmers have incurred obligations all through the summer to the local storekeeper and the local fuel dealer. Most farmers now have very large obligations to implement companies. When one considers that, along with these obligations, the farmer will have to provide for his own family's living expenses and other farm expenses, the $1,000 ceiling to my mind is too low. I think the ceiling should have been not less than $2,000.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I want to impress upon the minister my conviction, for what it is worth, that there should be provision for farm storage. It has been said over and over again that it would not cost the federal treasury a single dollar. If one farmer, because of bad weather conditions, because there is a shortage of box cars, cannot deliver his grain in the fall, I believe he should be entitled to a slightly higher initial payment next spring or early next summer when he does deliver his crop. The elevator companies are now given 1 cent per bushel per month as storage. It has been sufficient to encourage the elevator companies to build large annexes and other additional storage. Out of that 1 cent per bushel per month they have been able to finance the investment cost, cover depreciation and cover interest on the capital investment. If it is fair to pay farm storage to elevator companies it should be fair likewise to pay farm storage to farmers. If that provision were made, Mr. Speaker, then the commercial interest rate that the banks will charge for the loans made under this measure would not be a burden on the farmer. I also think the government should consider-and I hope they will-making a 75 per cent advance on farm-stored grain, not only as an emergency policy for this year but also as a good permanent piece of legislation.
In a word, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the legislation. I would prefer to have seen advances made through the elevator companies at no interest charge to the farmer. But to assist the farmer to pay the interest under the present measure I hope the government will make provision for the payment of farm storage which would be more than sufficient to cover the 5 or 6 per cent rate of interest payable to the banks.


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Since I may not have an opportunity to say a few words when the bill is introduced I should like to take a few minutes now. I am neither a western farmer, a grain grower nor an eastern farmer, but I have listened to the appeals that have been made here since the session

began and my sympathies are certainly with the farmer in the condition in which he finds himself in western Canada. After all, we must look after the farmer. I view the occupation he is engaged in as a great work for the benefit of us all. The farmer is the greatest gambler of any man in business, in the professions or in anything else we have in our communities. He gambles from the time the seed is put in the ground. He gambles on whether he is going to get the proper soil productivity, and also on whether he is going to get good cultivation of the soil. He goes right on gambling to the time of harvesting. He gambles on weather conditions, and worst of all he has to gamble on marketing conditions. Well, it is not quite so bad gambling on the market conditions in the east as it is in the west, because in the east the farmer uses his own experience and smaller organizations in marketing his products. But in western Canada the government takes charge of the marketing conditions, and according to the report we had last year it lost a good deal of money. Someone repeated the statement tonight that the wheat growers, through marketing conditions set up by the government, lost about $300 or $400 million.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I thought we settled all that in the Manitoba plebiscite.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: That is nonsense.


Mr. Blackmore:: It is not nonsense.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I am only saying what western members have said. I, for one, supported the $65 million they got from our treasury last year. I am not making any complaint about that. My sympathy goes out to them again on this occasion, and I am pleased that some guarantee is being given them so they can be ready for the crop season. And, instead of making it a short-term credit, why not make it for a longer term, so they will have a chance to get along until the crop is taken off?
I should like to add some personal observations, the first of which would be that while the farmer is a gambler, the fisherman is a real runner-up. I am proud to see the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) in his seat, after escaping from the communists in Korea. I know he will appreciate what I am going to say about the poor fishermen in my own locality. Last November there was a very heavy storm in that area, with winds reaching a velocity of 70 miles an hour, with extra high tides which broke up practically all the breakwaters, so that the waters flooded in over the beaches and around the homes of the fishermen. It invaded their fishing shanties and their equipment. A large percentage of that equipment was a
Grain
total loss, so the fishermen are left without the security that would permit them to ask for a loan.
I bring this to the attention of the minister. When we are voting money for the western farmers I suggest something could be done for those fishermen. I know the machinery has already been set up in the Department of Fisheries, so it would take the burden of administration off the shoulders of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). This would cost only a few thousand dollars, as compared with the millions that would go to the west. Further, it could be operated through the fishermen's loans board which is already set up. I know the minister would find, upon investigation, that the loss suffered by these poor people has been very great. I know some of them whose homes have been disrupted. They had to leave their homes during the storm. Their shanties, buildings, machinery, equipment, boats, traps, rope and all other gear were lost. Some of it was beaten by the waves against the rocks. Surely those fishermen are deserving of some consideration at the hands of the government. If we are to be generous to the western farmers, then I want to see the fishermen of my constituency in Prince Edward Island receive what is properly their due.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to pursue the matter of interest rates on these loans. I must admit that it is some time since I have done any commercial borrowing from the banks. For a good many years I knew well what their rate of interest was on loans. The minister has said that it will be the commercial rate. Is that 6 per cent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend is now discussing the details of the bill. When it is before the house, all that will be set out. I do not think that at this stage I should discuss what is in the bill.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am only asking the commercial rate of interest at the moment. A principle is involved. The minister suggested that it was something the same as the loans under the small loans legislation for veterans. It will be recalled that in that instance we guaranteed the banks against certain losses; and because of those guarantees the banks made those loans at less than the commercial rate of interest.
In this instance we are guaranteeing a much higher loss than we guaranteed under the measure which dealt with the veterans. I think the same consideration should be given in this instance. If the banks are being

Grain
guaranteed up to the total of $5 million, or 25 per cent of their loss, then I think there should be some consideration by way of a rate of interest lower than the commercial rate. It does not seem to me that the financial institutions of this country should be in the position of reaping a harvest out of every disaster in Canada. This was a disaster. In a large part of the western provinces the crop was not harvested this year. I certainly think the rate of interest should be lower than the commercial rate.


Mr. Queich:: Perhaps the minister would wish to wait until we reach the committee stage of the bill before he answers, but I would ask how loans will be averaged among the various banks. Will it be left to the banks to allocate the amounts among themselves, or will the government allot a certain amount to each bank?
I think the thousand-dollar average would be satisfactory in many instances, because it will carry the farmer who would not have any money at all. There will be many farmers who will borrow perhaps only a portion of the $1,000. On the other hand there will be a few who will require considerably more than that amount. I am thinking of those who are in the unhappy position of having their total crop under snow. If a farmer is farming 600 acres it would mean that in the spring he must purchase more than 700 bushels of seed wheat at a cost of perhaps $1,500. So the $1,000 would not begin to meet his cost of seed, let alone any other expenses. I should hope it would be possible to allow a certain amount of leeway to meet a situation of that kind.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not the intention that these loans shall take over the financing of all western Canada. They are loans extended on rather sketchy security-that is, security of crops which may be in the fields, and may be subject to all sorts of damage in the winter time. The intention is to provide enough to look after the living expenses of the farmer. It is not intended that we will provide money to pay his debts, or-


Victor Quelch: His seed is most important.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We hope it will take care of seed. But there are always provisions to take care of seed. My hon. friend and I, as long as we have been in the house, have known of provisions for seed on a good many occasions. I do not think the farmer will be let down so far as his seed is concerned.
It is suggested that these loans should carry a special rate of interest that would be lower than the commercial rate. Inevitably that

would mean that farmers who have perfectly good credit at the banks, and have been using it for years, would drop the private credit they have always enjoyed and make use of this special credit. That is not our desire. This is to be a loan for a short period of two or three months and no more, with the rate of interest about 5 per cent.


Victor Quelch: The minister means more than that, surely.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Loans will be put out beginning January 1 and will stop, I would think, in May and will become due as the grain is marketed. If the farmer does not market some of his grain by the first of May he is not going to have much seeding done for next year.


Victor Quelch: There is a lot of this grain that will not be threshed until June. Last year, in the area around Hanna, there were a few farmers who were not able to thresh grain until after their seeding operations had been completed; they were threshing up until July. Provision will have to be made so that loans may be continued until the farmer has done his threshing. Much depends upon the type of spring you have. If the snow goes early, threshing can be completed before seeding, but it is not often that we have a spring like that. I should imagine that a lot of the crop may not be threshed until after seeding.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not intend to say that we were going to call the loans on the first day of May. As a matter of fact they may run until October before they are in default. But it is not intended to make any new loans after May 1 or June 1. Again we are discussing the bill, which we can do much better when it is before us. We are in position to lend $1,000 to 20,000 farmers. Many of those farmers will have marketed some of their grain. I spoke to groups of farmers all across the prairies, and most responsible farm leaders agreed with me that $20 million would be more than ample. If we are wrong, parliament will be in session next spring and the situation can be corrected. This is intended to take care of a situation, and if we are wrong it will have to be corrected.


Robert Fair: I am glad to hear the minister say he intends to take care of the situation.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The Liberal party always takes care of the situation.


Robert Fair: How long has the hon. member been in the Liberal party? How many parties was he in before he got in the Liberal party?


Victor Quelch: This will not allow the farmers sufficient time to complete their threshing.

Many of them will not get any payments out of the 1951 crop, and many will not have their crops threshed by that time. The time should be extended to November 15, because to stop payments on October 1 will create hardship on many farmers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think it is fair to be discussing the bill when it is not before us.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was glad to hear the minister say that if the $20 million or the $5 million guarantee was not sufficient, the situation would be corrected during the session next spring. I wonder if the government still has under consideration the matter of paying farm storage. If the wheat board paid farm storage, a slight increase in the initial price would enable these farmers to pay the interest on their loans.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not mind saying a word on that. To me farm storage is the most fallacious nonsense in the world for improving the lot of the farmer. Who is it that pays farm storage? It is the farmer. He pays it to himself. My hon. friend is practically suggesting that when delivery of grain is made, say in March, instead of getting $1.20, which probably would be due on No. 1 northern wheat, the farmer would get $1.24. All right, that is 4 cents he is ahead there. But when he gets his final payment he is going to find that 4 cents is deducted. All he gets is 4 cents a little bit earlier.
If we changed the interim payment and made it 24 cents instead of 20 cents the result would be practically the same. After all, in a normal season every farmer has the right to market the same amount of wheat as every other farmer under the quota system. Therefore every farmer has about the same proportion of his grain to carry over a period. Some farmers do so deliberately, because they want to be sure they will have grain until they know how their crops are coming along in the next season.
A great deal of grain is marketed in June and July, as my hon. friend knows. One of the difficulties faced by a handling pool is that you get so much late-marketed grain. The payment of storage encourages the holding of grain on the farm, and with a short crop that would be most embarrassing indeed. The purpose of the wheat board is to sell grain just as fast as they can find' markets and it is most important that the grain be in the elevators where the wheat board has it under its control.
When you set up a system of farm storage it is not just for one year, it usually becomes a permanent situation. It could be a situation that would react against the farmer. After all, the wheat board is only the agent
Grain
of the farmer and if the wheat board gets in trouble, the farmer for whom the wheat board is agent is also in trouble. I travelled across the prairies and talked to farm leaders everywhere, and it was not until I reached Saskatoon that I got any indication of any interest whatever in farm storage. I think any thoughtful representative of the farmers would know that the holding out of the payment of farm storage to farmers, knowing that the farmers would be paying the storage to themselves, is misleading the farmers as to their best interests.


Hazen Robert Argue: I take issue with the minister in his argument on farm storage. I do not think it is fallacious nonsense, and I do not think that anyone who proposes farm storage is misleading the farmers. The minister knows that at one elevator point there may be lots of box cars, there may be ample room, there may be no quota and the farmers may be able to haul out a large part of their grain. At some other point the situation may be entirely different. I know farmers in my own constituency who were unable to deliver a bushel of last year's grain until February or March. I do not think farm storage is fallacious at all; I think it is only justice that the farmer who cannot market his grain-that is the situation now for a great many farmers- should get some compensation for being forced to store that grain on the farm. After all, the elevator companies get it and it is the farmers' money that pays the elevator companies. I see no reason why the farmer who cannot sell his grain should not get farm storage.
I think the minister's suggestion that because it is done in any one year it will become a permanent policy, that the government will have to keep on doing it, is fallacious nonsense, if the minister will pardon my using that term, because the government can change its policy in connection with wheat very quickly, as has happened in the past. The wheat board paid it around 1942 and they did not continue that policy.
We have had two bumper crops. Let us assume that those two bumper crops are marketed and that next fall the terminals are empty and there is lots of room in the country elevators in western Canada. Then, as the minister said, we may have a short crop. I think the minister has a much better argument against farm storage in a situation like that. As to the situation this year, it was the government's policy, as the minister has said to us in the house, to move grain early in the year from Manitoba and Alberta, where it was available, to seaboard and to the lakehead. Those farmers were able to sell their grain, but farmers in Saskatchewan

Grain
were not able to sell their grain to the same extent. If storage were paid it would merely be a redistribution of wheat board moneys. In the present situation I think it would be a fairer basis than paying storage only to elevator companies.


Percy Ellis Wright: There is another way in which I think the minister's statement was fallacious. He stated it would amount to the farmer paying storage to himself. That is perfectly correct, but storage is paid whether or not the farmer pays it to himself. It is paid to the elevator company, and that is exactly why the farmer thinks he should have it. The grain remains in storage and storage is paid on it, but it is paid to the elevator company.


Mr. Juiras:: Not for grain held on the farm, anyway.


Percy Ellis Wright: Pardon?


René Jutras: There is no storage paid on grain held on the farm, anyway.


Percy Ellis Wright: There is none now, no. It is paid on what goes through the elevator companies. If storage were paid on farm-stored grain that amount would go to the farmers instead of to the elevator companies.


René Jutras: Millions of bushels are marketed in the spring. There is no storage paid on that.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is right. There is no storage paid on what is on the farm normally, but as to any amount over and above what is normally held on the farm, the storage would be paid to the elevator companies and they get the benefit of it unless the farmer is a member of a pool, when of course he gets it back.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I should like to ask a question of the hon. member who has just sat down, in order to be helpful. Does he not think if farm storage were paid there would be a tendency for the farmer to hold grain back on his farm until the latter part of the marketing season in order to gain that storage money for himself? That would then bring about far worse conditions for moving that grain.


Hazen Robert Argue: A question like that is not very sensible at a time when the farmer cannot market his grain.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: On a question of privilege, I did not ask the hon. member for Assiniboia; I asked the hon. member for Melfort.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then you will get two answers.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I cannot comprehend fully the answer the hon. member gave.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not think payment of storage on farm-stored grain would make very much difference in the amount of grain

coming forward. I do not think there are many farmers who would simply hold their grain on the farm for the purpose of getting the one cent storage on it. In the first place not many farmers are in a position to hold it if they can market it, but if they have to hold it they should get something on it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am not going to sit down. I am going to say what I have to say. I want to make this clear. We all want to finish the discussion of the resolution but I want to have this point cleared up first. It is quite clear that farmers, mostly in Saskatchewan where there are big farms, hold back their grain purposely to avoid having the income tax all coming in one year.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has the government given any consideration to making the 25 per cent guarantee applicable to credit unions? We have a number of large credit unions in Saskatchewan and in other provinces of western Canada, that have been most successful. They are engaged day to day in the lending business. Has any consideration been given to extending to them the same guarantee as to the banks?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A good deal of consideration
was given to who would do the lending. At first we thought the logical agency would be the elevator companies, and I must say the Saskatchewan pool was very co-operative in agreeing to arrange that and share part of the loss. However, on going into the situation it was found there were protests that elevator agents were not in the habit of filling out forms, that they were not bankers and were terrifically busy doing the job of running the country elevators. There was only one agency that was favourable to that plan. We gave it up as impractical. Then we looked at other sources of lending and decided that the chartered banks were the logical agencies. They undertook to do the job, somewhat reluctantly it is true; they agreed to carry out the letter and spirit of the act. I think the suggestions that have been made that the banks will not do a thorough job in looking after the needs of western Canada under this legislation are unfounded. We cannot go beyond the chartered banks. There are reasons for that. It is not possible to extend the same lending privilege to the credit unions, and I do not think it is necessary for this very short term financing.


James Arthur Ross: I want to ask a question that has a bearing on farm storage. Is it not a fact that a certain amount of grain is carried for a while in the terminals and the

expense is pooled to till wheat producers in the final settlement through the wheat board? There are certain charges at the terminal elevators that are ultimately pooled to all producers through the wheat board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Storage in country elevators and in terminals at Fort William is a charge on the wheat board. Of course when the wheat gets beyond Fort William storage is a charge on the purchaser.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 44, to provide for shortterm credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to complete harvesting operations or to make delivery of grain.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Alphonse Fournier: May 1 ask hon. members if they will agree to let us pass the resolution under item 14 on the order paper. This is the measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to make capital expenditures not exceeding a certain amount. If we could secure agreement to pass the resolution we would have the bill tomorrow and I would put it on the order paper for tomorrow. I think it is largely a formal resolution, and I believe the debate could take place tomorrow if the financial critic of the opposition will agree.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The resolution appears to follow the usual form, and I do not see any reason why we should not let it pass tonight.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to make capital expenditures not exceeding $55,581, 816 for the purpose of meeting the commitments that have been incurred by the national railway system in the year 1951 in respect of new equipment; to authorize the national company to issue securities to provide amounts required for the authorized expenditures; to provide that the aggregate principal amount of securities, not including any securities issued to secure temporary loans made by the Minister of Finance, outstanding at any time
Canadian National Railways shall not exceed $55,581,816; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal and interest of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the Minister of Finance to make temporary loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $55,581,816 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the said national system.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I notice that the minister is not here. I think that any questions I wish to ask can be asked when we see the bill.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does this represent any
new construction, or is it just to cover the annual deficit?


Alphonse Fournier: It is just the annual
financing bill for the Canadian National. I believe it is in the same form as the bill which comes up every year.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I wondered whether it
represented any new construction.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It covers the program of car
building which is the usual capital expenditure of the Canadian National Railways.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Fournier (Hull) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 45, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain commitments for new equipment incurred by the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1951, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railways.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take up third reading of the two bills we passed this afternoon concerning the national gallery and the Civil Service Act; then the bill based on the resolution of the Minister of Finance concerning the Canadian National, which we just passed. I do not know if we can proceed with the first item, because I do not know if we shall have sufficient copies of the bill. However, I hope to have them tomorrow. Then we shall take up Bill No. 25, an act'to provide for the financial administration of the government of Canada; Bill No. 26, an act to amend the Public Works Act; Bill No. 15, an act to provide for privileges and immunities in respect of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; Bill No. 18, an act to provide for the

Business of the House establishment of an agricultural products board; Bill No. 44, an act to provide for short-term credit to grain producers of the prairie provinces; Bill No. 23, an act to amend the Government Annuities Act. To the best of my knowledge there are few items left on the order paper after these.


Mr. Drew:: The minister does not think we can take up resale price maintenance tomorrow as well?


Alphonse Fournier: I can try, but I do not think I shall succeed.


George Alexander Drew: May I have an indication as to when the house leader does expect to bring
forward the measure relating to resale price maintenance?


Alphonse Fournier: I could not give the definite hour on Monday, but on Monday we intend to bring it up.


Gordon Graydon: You are going on with it?


Alphonse Fournier: Certainly. It was announced in the speech from the throne.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday. December 15, 1951